J.D. Falk wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote: [...]
Reading through the archives, it quickly becomes clear that the
arguments against accepting draft-hoffman-dac-vbr are actually arguments
against potential bad decisions on the part of mail system operators.
They're arguments against a big ISP like
At 08:18 14-01-2009, The IESG wrote:
The IESG is considering approving this draft as a standards track
RFC. The IESG solicits final comments on whether the IETF community has
consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed
standard. Comments can be sent to ietf@ietf.org or except
And now for something completely different... for those of you tired
of IPR-related issues, I'll ask this: does anyone on the list write
Internet-Drafts using Eclipse? And if so, any particular plugins or
configuration you have found useful in authoring IDs?
I ask purely because I've been d
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 06:45:03PM -0500, Ofer Inbar wrote:
> IETF decisions don't get made by counting votes, as you know.
> There's no value in having lots and lots of people write to say
> essentially the same thing - it just annoys list members, but
> doesn't actually contribute to the discuss
+1
If the bar for allowing technology to move forward in the IETF is that
it must not only be unencumbered itself, but _any_ use of it must also
be unencumbered, then we may as well all go home, after rescinding TCP,
IP, HTTP, and anything else we have done in the past - these are all
used to do s
Dan York wrote:
And now for something completely different... for those of you tired of
IPR-related issues, I'll ask this: does anyone on the list write
Internet-Drafts using Eclipse? And if so, any particular plugins or
configuration you have found useful in authoring IDs?
I ask purely becau
Brian E Carpenter writes:
> FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
> IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):
>
> The actual words in RedPhone's current disclosure:
>
> "RedPhone Security hereby asserts that the techniques for
> sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I disagree. The IETF policies around patents mention "use" as well
> as "implementation". Thus, a license that permit "implementation"
> but not permitting "use" should generate similar scrutiny and
> discussion. It poses the same problem for actual users.
>
> I strongl
On 2/10/09 7:20 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with that claim. It's true that decisions are
> not made by counting votes. Decisions _are_ supposed to be made,
> during consensus call, by weighing the arguments and the apparent
> support for the document.
Under classical co
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:41:50AM -0500, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Under classical consensus decision-making there's
> a prerequisite that the participants have some
> investment in the process itself and that they
> actively participate. Drive by "I'm against it!"
> posts almost certainly don't qu
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 05:57:28AM -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> And the question is: did all those people writing in read and understand
> the draft and fully understand the issue? Or are they just
> regurgitating a "do this" announcement. How do you weigh a bunch of
> uninformed responses again
Dear All:
As promised last night, I have sent the FSF's Campaign E-Mail address
an E-Mail detailing the following:
"Dear Sirs:
Good morning! During the ensuing discussion at the IETF concerning
TLS-authz, I found out about several avenues that may be more
productive to channel input than the ge
I agree with Brian and Marshall, but let me introduce a different
perspective on the issue.
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
[...]
I don't see any sensible way you get from the [Brian interprtetation] to the
[FSF interpretation].
Maybe it's a matter of ideological objection to patents. Enginee
> "Carsten" == Carsten Bormann writes:
Carsten> http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
Carsten> While I have a lot of sympathy for the cause, I have very
Carsten> little sympathy for the methods. Rendering a mailing list
It's an IETF last call.
This is what we
Dear Mr. Brown:
I am writing to you (and CC'ing the boards members of the FSF, less one whose
emailbox I couldn't easily locate) in an attempt to explain to you (and
convince you) that 'mass mailings' to the IETF mailing list (or any IETF
list) of the sort the FSF has now attempted twice (once bac
On 2/10/09 9:27 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
> Sure. But under such classical consensus decision-making, one knows
> who's in "the group" for the consensus. The IETF doesn't, because the
> answer to "Who's in the group?" is supposed to be "Who replied on the
> mailing list?"
Well, no, I don't a
writes:
> My reading of RedPhone's IPR disclosure 1026 is that they claim to
> have a patent application about a larger system that includes
> tls-authz as one part, and uses it in particular way. If you want to
> build a system matching the numbered list 1..4 in the disclosure
> (RedPhone's desc
On Feb 10, 2009, at 15:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
The IETF should be *thrilled* that so many people care!
In a world with unlimited time, yes. In the real world, polluting the
discourse by hundreds of more or less unconsidered knee-jerk reactions
just makes sure that *I* can't take pa
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:19:57AM -0500, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Well, no, I don't agree with that last bit, in the
> sense that I don't think "replied on the mailing list"
> really means the same thing as "participated."
I think we're in agreement. All I'm suggesting is that there's no _a
pri
I agree there is no way to know "a priori" about the intentions of a person
who sends an e-mail to an IETF list.
That being said, I do think it would be good to invest in methods that
increase the probability that people who post might actually participate
over a longer time (vs. just "driving-by"
> From: Andrew Sullivan
> This means that those "driving by" have to be tolerated, I think.
Ah, no.
Because if organizing an email campaign works for the FSF, next thing you
know, BigCorp X will be telling everyone who works for it 'we want standard Q
approved, please send email to the
Noel wrote:
> Rather than adopt indirect measures (such as requiring people to be
> registered users of a list), I would go straight to the heart of the
> matter, and adopt a formal policy that a mass email campaign should
> count _against_ the position taken by that campaign, precisely to
> dis
On 2/10/09 11:34 AM, "Ed Juskevicius" wrote:
> I am not trying to pour cold water on your idea here, but rather I am
> wondering how something like this could be formalized, versus handled as an
> exceptional case when and if it occurs.
I don't really how understand "count against" would
work in
On Feb 9, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
Dean's mail does not hurt any of us. OK, it does take a minute of our
time to unsubscribe but that's it.
In my opinion it is not alright for someone to harvest email address
off and IETF list then subscribe all those people to some list they
Melinda wrote:
> I don't really how understand "count against" would
> work in practice.
I agree. This would be another important consideration for any policy, and
(I suspect) not very easy to define.
Regards,
Ed
-Original Message-
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:msh...@cisco.com]
Sent:
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Andrew Sullivan
>
> > This means that those "driving by" have to be tolerated, I think.
>
> Ah, no.
>
> Because if organizing an email campaign works for the FSF, next thing you
> know, BigCorp X will be telling everyone who works for it 'we want standard Q
> From: Keith Moore
>> a formal policy that a mass email campaign should count _against_ the
>> position taken by that campaign, precisely to dis-incentivize such
>> campaigns.
> that kind of policy might actually encourage "gaming" of the IETF.
Good point. It might be hard
Excerpts from Cullen Jennings on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 09:40:55AM -0700:
>
> On Feb 9, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>
>> Dean's mail does not hurt any of us. OK, it does take a minute of
>> our time to unsubscribe but that's it.
>
>
> In my opinion it is not alright for someone to harvest email
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 08:20:22PM -0500, Scott Brim wrote:
> Dean's mail does not hurt any of us. OK, it does take a minute of our
> time to unsubscribe but that's it. The ietf list will see the same
Spam behaviour on the Internet is not "wrong" simply because the email
of one individual is int
Scott Brim wrote:
I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on
all interactions?
Scott,
When someone demonstrates a permanent pattern of disruptive behavior, with no
counter-balancing pattern of useful contribution, their presence is purely a
distraction. Ignori
Simon Josefsson wrote:
writes:
My reading of RedPhone's IPR disclosure 1026 is that they claim to
have a patent application about a larger system that includes
tls-authz as one part, and uses it in particular way. If you want to
build a system matching the numbered list 1..4 in the disclos
On Feb 10, 2009, at 12:23 PM, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 08:20:22PM -0500, Scott Brim wrote:
Dean's mail does not hurt any of us. OK, it does take a minute of
our
time to unsubscribe but that's it. The ietf list will see the same
Spam behaviour on the Internet is not
In fairness, the posts resulting from the FSF, uh, call to action, of
this issue have been polite and tried to make a point. Some of them
may be more or less informed about the facts at hand but they have
been on topic and do express an opinion. I'm sure we can all think of
examples of fa
I've gotten a bit lost on all the changes. Would it be possible to
send to the list a single email that summarizes the current proposed
changes to the document published on the web sight? or just a new copy
of the document?
On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:41 PM, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
-Ori
At 08:21 10-02-2009, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Because if organizing an email campaign works for the FSF, next thing you
know, BigCorp X will be telling everyone who works for it 'we want standard Q
approved, please send email to the IETF list about that'. If we allow
ourselves to be influenced by a ma
Dear Cullen;
On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I've gotten a bit lost on all the changes. Would it be possible to
send to the list a single email that summarizes the current proposed
changes to the document published on the web sight? or just a new
copy of the document?
Cullen, in answer to your question, Yes.
A penultimate draft of the proposed changes to the Legal Provisions
document is available from the IETF Trust website at
http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
Please look at the version labelled:
Draft Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documen
The result of the FSF campaign has been to raise a legal concern obviously
important to many of us: Will users of the proposed IETF TLS specification
require patent licenses from RedPhone to use such implementations in the US
or elsewhere?
I don't yet know the answer to this question. Does anyone
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:59:52 -0800
"Lawrence Rosen" wrote:
> The result of the FSF campaign has been to raise a legal concern
No, they didn't raise the concern. The concern had been raised
previously by people who are obviously IETF participants, including
Simon Josefsson. (I don't recall if y
Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote:
> If the technology in the document to be standardized is
> unencumbered, then the fact that _some_ uses of that technology may
> run into encumbered territory is irrelevant, except to those who
> hate patents in general.
I think software patents are a bad idea, and wou
> From: "Lawrence Rosen"
> The result of the FSF campaign has been to raise a legal concern
> obviously important to many of us: Will users of the proposed IETF TLS
> specification require patent licenses from RedPhone to use such
> implementations in the US or elsewhere?
Tha
Scott Brim wrote:
Excerpts from Cullen Jennings on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 09:40:55AM -0700:
On Feb 9, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
Dean's mail does not hurt any of us. OK, it does take a minute of
our time to unsubscribe but that's it.
In my opinion it is not alright for som
On Feb 10, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: "Lawrence Rosen"
The result of the FSF campaign has been to raise a legal concern
obviously important to many of us: Will users of the proposed IETF
TLS
specification require patent licenses from RedPhone to use such
implementations
Excerpts from Dave CROCKER on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 09:25:14AM -0800:
> Scott Brim wrote:
>> I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on
>> all interactions?
> When someone demonstrates a permanent pattern of disruptive behavior,
> with no counter-balancing pattern of usefu
Tim,
On 2009-02-10 18:32, Tim Bray wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
>> IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):
>>
>> The actual words in RedPhone's current disclosure:
>
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I'm not sure I'd really believe any determination short of a court's
> anyway -
> attorneys can advise, but until the proverbial butcher-baker-
> candlestickmaker
> get their say after a trial, it's got an element of coin-toss to it, no?
I respond only to this specific point.
Hi Steve,
On 2009-02-11 08:19, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:59:52 -0800
> "Lawrence Rosen" wrote:
>> Why don't we organize to answer the patent claim infringement issues
>> like professionals do? Ask technical experts. Consult a patent
>> attorney. Render expert opinio
Thomas Narten said:
"At the 20k level, I pretty much agree with everything John has said.
This smells to me mostly of a way for the IESG to have an friendlier
way of shutting down a WG without huring people's feelings. Sorry, but
I think this missed the point. (I would be fine with individu
To paraphrase Hamlet:
Hamlet: What's the news?
Rosencrantz: None, my lord, but that the IETF list's grown "honest".
Hamlet: Then 'tis doomsday come.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Bernard Aboba wrote:
To paraphrase Hamlet:
sure hope we have a different ending...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dear All:
I have received a reply from the Free Software Foundation as to why
they directed comments to this list.
The last call
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg05617.html)
instructs the public to contact this mailing list in order to express
their comments.
In li
To paraphrase you:
"Because these people are clueless and have no idea how the IETF
works, it is perfectly proper to mislead them with an announcement
with a call-to-action that basically amounts to spam. When they
take such action it's obviously because the IETF doesn't use the
right language."
I do not support publication of this document as a Proposed Standard via
the AD-sponsored route, for several reasons:
a. I believe that this document should have been handled as a WG work item.
It should not be commonplace for standards track security documents to be
handled outside of
>> As implementer of the technology, and having consulted with legal
>> aid, I have made another interpretation. ...
>My reading of RedPhone's IPR disclosure 1026 is that they claim to
>have a patent application about a larger system that includes
>tls-authz as one part, and uses it in particular
> I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on
> all interactions?
In Dean's case, yes.
There's a great deal of history here.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dear Ole:
Your paraphrasing assumes many stances that I neither have taken nor
believe, and I'm not certain why my attempts to discern the nature of
how this situation came about is met so frequently with rude
responses. I think, judging by the harsh tone of your response, that
you may have mista
On 2/10/09 4:12 PM, "Alex Loret de Mola" wrote:
> It assumes that I feel that the individuals posting here were
> clueless.
*I* feel that the individuals posting here were
largely clueless. What, the "Reject TLS!" post
didn't raise your eyebrows?
I think the problem here is that the FSF issued
> From: Alex Loret de Mola
> The last call ... instructs the public to contact this mailing list in
> order to express their comments.
No, it instructs _the people it was sent to_, the IETF community (which is of
course open to anyone who wants to join, with no pre-conditions or cost
Dear Melinda (as well as Ole and Noel, who updated with posts while I
was writing this =) ):
I understand your concern, and it concerns me as well. I'm in a bit
of a delicate situation, attempting to play the role of liason between
us and the FSF (ever since I volunteered for such a duty yesterda
On 2/10/09 4:48 PM, "Alex Loret de Mola" wrote:
> What I don't want to see, however, is intelligent and reasonable
> people turned away by the abruptness of the backlash here.
I have no idea what you mean by "reasonable and
intelligent." It seems to me that if they want
to participate in the pro
I think Melinda makes a good point here.
The fundamental problem with these RMS-grams is that RMS has a longstanding
habit of working in write only mode. He makes little or often no effort to
determine what the situation is. I have in the past found him entirely
interested in responding to enq
Dear Melinda:
By reasonable and intelligent, I mean people who have skills and
expertise that could be useful to the IETF: maybe now, or maybe years
from now. A person who feels like they've been treated with undue
harshness can hold onto that for quite some time... and that
resentment could turn
On Feb 10, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Alex Loret de Mola wrote:
Dear Melinda (as well as Ole and Noel, who updated with posts while I
was writing this =) ):
I understand your concern, and it concerns me as well. I'm in a bit
of a delicate situation, attempting to play the role of liason between
us an
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> I think the problem here is that the FSF issued
> an action alert that contained an awful lot of
> misinformation, and its minions did what they were
> asked - they posted an "opinion" of a document they
> clearly hadn't read.
A lot of peopl
Since there have been divergent opinions expressed as to whether one must
be subscribed to this list to post ...
The answer is NO ... but if one is not subscribed, one receives at least
one:
Confirmation of list posting -- confirmation ID: mH46IzSZIBHA
email. W/o actually releasing my test, I
Robinson,
Please stick around. We could use more people like you, and if you
become more active in IETF discussions and bring your viewpoint in,
we'll be the better for it.
On 2/10/09, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > I think the problem here i
Dear IETF committee,
Being a student and system administrator at once I support Free Software
Foundation and fully support it regarding TLS patent awareness:
http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
I fully agree that patent technology should not be standardized.
Thanks!
--
Jurijs K
Please keep Internet standards free; don't approve proposals which may
be patent-encumbered. In particlar, please deny TLS-authz.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I'm a free programmer, and I respect my freedom. Applying a patent license
for "TLS authorization" will threaten my freedom, and all of the other
users' and programmers'.
Me, and other people of Free Software Communities ask you to oppose this
standard until RedPhone provide a royalty-free license
I am saddened to hear about the plans to move the TLS Authorisation
specification to a Proposed Standard.
Being encumbered with patents will severely restrict the ability for
this standard to be deployed in the same manner with which other very
successful non-encumbered standards of the IETF h
Thomas Narten said:
"At the 20k level, I pretty much agree with everything John has said.
This smells to me mostly of a way for the IESG to have an friendlier
way of shutting down a WG without huring people's feelings. Sorry, but
I think this missed the point. (I would be fine with individual cas
I do not support publication of this document as a Proposed Standard, for
several reasons:
a. I believe that the subject of this document (TLS authorization) is of
fundamental importance to a number of IETF WGs, and therefore it should
not be handled via AD-sponsorship, but rather within a WG.
Dear IETF,
I just heard news that the IETF is in the process of approving a
standard for TLS authorization (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
that includes mechanisms which may be covered under a patent owned by
RedPhone Security. RedPhone Security has not provided a royalty-free
license to th
Hello,
I am writing because I am concerned about the proposed TLS authorization
standard (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) that the IETF is considering. I
understand that the IETF rejected a similar standard in 2006 due to
potential patent conflicts with RedPhone Security. Despite the fact that
Re
In the name of all things holy (freedom, open standards,
implementability, interoperability, fair use, etc., etc.), please keep
the Internet and its defining standards unencumbered and patent-free.
Specifically, please do not approve any TLS authorization standard which
includes, say, patents by R
Dear members of IETF,
as far as I've understood, the IETF has been called to evaluate the proposal for a
standard for "TLS authorization" which, as far as I know, is patent encumbered.
That patent in question is claimed by RedPhone Security. RedPhone has given a
license to anyone who implement
Hi,
I would like to express my opinion that the TLS-authz should not be
ratified as a standard, unless the topic of patient enforcement is
completely resolved by "RedPhone Security" issuing a royalty free (or
suitably equivalent) license for all users. This would be bad for the
internet in g
I am writing to express my concern with the proposed standard on TLS
authorisation. What disturbs me about this standard is that it includes
methodologies that are covered by patent protection.
As I'm sure you are aware a standard encumbered in this manner cannot be
considered a truly open st
Dear Sirs,
The proposal in object has a changed status from "experimental" to
"proposed standard".
Unfortunately, such a proposal is encumbered by a patent. That patent in
question is claimed by RedPhone Security. RedPhone has given a license
to anyone who implements the protocol, but they still th
Mr. Chiappa is disingenuous in his letter below. While cogent arguments
are indeed appropriate during the development of a document, such
arguments are irrelevant during the consensus-determination or "Last
Call" process, which only is concerned with the consensus on approving
or disapproving the
Agreed. And more to the point, I am quite disappointed that while we
make it abundantly clear that contributions, if published, clearly
become the property of the IETF Trust, we still talk about Authors as
individuals writing original documents, instead of Editors, who work
at the behest o
Sounds like a good policy. However, what is the motivation to put
this in writing? Is it that we are missing stronger language to let
the IESG yank a charter?
The reason I ask is the participants in a work group SHOULD be the
closest to the technology and aware of events. Because of that,
To all concerned -
I am writing to express my concern with the patent encumbrance of
proposed standard, draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07, which appears to
be possibly encumbered by patents held by RedPhone Security. It is my
opinion that without RedPhone granting a royalty-free license for all
use
To whom it may concern,
I urge you to reconsider the adoption of the proposed TLS authorization
standard in light of the potential patent threat that it poses.
Although RedPhone has offered license to anyone implements the protocol,
they have left the option open to sue anyone who does. Standardi
I urge that ITEF not approve TLS authorization standard at or on any
level unless the patent threat is removed entirely with a royalty-free
license for all users.
George Demmy
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed patent-encumbered
standard for TLS authorisation. To do so would fly in the face of the IETF's
fundamental commitment to openness. It would weaken not just the standard
itself, but the IETF's authority in this sphere.
At a time when there is inc
I'm an internet user and found out
a little about TLS-authz standard.
The standard is restricted (some
would say protected) by patents,
even when the patent has been
granted for anyone who implements
the standard, users' way for
navigating the web is threatened.
I ask you to consider this and
con
Please, do not approve this standard on any level unless the patent
threat is removed entirely with a royalty-free license for all users.
Thanks.
P.s.: http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
--
Ivan Baldo - iba...@adinet.com.uy - http://ibaldo.codigolibre.net/
From Montevide
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Sirs:
I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed patent-encumbered
standard for TLS authorization. To do so would fly in the face of the
IETF's fundamental commitment to openness. It would weaken not just the
standard itself, bu
Dear Sir/Madam:
It's come to my attention that there is an IETF standard that is being
proposed that uses patent-encumbered techniques, in particular, the
TLS-authz standard (see http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard)
. I do not know the merits of this claim, but I will simply
Dear IETF,
I'd like to express opposition to approval of the RedPhone patented "TLS
authorization" standard application before you. Although the internet is
obviously a tool for the creation of great wealth, it seems to me the 'net's
regulatory bodies shouldn't allow themselves to be used to en
As a Free/Libre Open Source Software advocate I oppose publication of
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed standard.
The patent application disclosed by RedPhone Security has put any free software
attempting to implement these extensions in a very difficult position. Free
software develop
IETF:
I am writing to inform you that I am strongly opposed to the proposed
TLS Authorization standard. The standard is encumbered by a patent from
RedPhone Security which could endanger the ability of developers to
create programs that use this proposed standard. While RedPhone has
issued a
Dear IETF:
There appears to be a show-stopper in draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2081/
It appears that the proposed standard is patent-encumbered.
1) This violates the EU definition of open standard
2) It hinders, and in some cases, prevents *
Greetings.
It shouldn't be that implementing standards of any kind requires any
royalties. Standards as such are meant to be a kind of an agreement
to make life and business easier. We agree upon them to support
competition on the market. In my opinion IETF must not sanction
any monopolies in any
Dear IETF,
I would like to express my concern about the proposed standard
"draft-housley-tls-authz-extns" for which the IESG has recently issued
another Last Call.
In IPR disclosure 1026, RedPhone Security asserts that receiving or
sending authorizations as defined by the proposed standard is n
I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed patent-encumbered
standard for TLS authorization. To do so would fly in the face of the
IETF's fundamental commitment to openness. It would weaken not just the
standard itself, but the IETF's authority in this sphere.
At a time when there is in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> "Andrew" == Andrew Newton writes:
Andrew> Considering the IETF encourages people to communicate with
Andrew> it via mailing lists and there really has been no other ways
Andrew> offered to the FSF, I can't really blame them.
An
Hi,
I've heard that RedPhone Security has a patent on parts
of the "TLS authorization" protocol. I really think it's
a bad idea to let a proprietary vendor get this kind of
stranglehold on such an important protocol.
Please I urge you to take this into consideration and either
block the specific
IETF,
The internet needs thrives on organic growth. This growth has been largely
possible because of open-sourced software. Having OSS-incompatible patents,
as those found in the proposed TLS-authz standard, would only diminish the
possibilities of growth for the internet. Thus, it will hold bac
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
