draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

2009-02-11 Thread Ralf Weber
Moin! I haven't been aware of this draft before the FSF encouraged some people to send there opinion into the IETF mailing list. This isn't my first post to an IETF mailinglist and I am subscribed to this and other lists on the IETF, so I do think I qualify as IETF participant. I did

Re: Last Call: draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes (Diameter Command Code Registration for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)) to Informational RFC

2009-02-11 Thread jouni korhonen
Hi Cullen, This is what the forthcoming RFC3588bis will do. Vendor-specific commands, like the 3GPP ones in this case, would be allocated on a First Come, First Served basis by IANA. However, for this specific request, RFC3588bis won't be ready/published soon enough. Cheers,

Re: Ah, I see the cause of the situation now... (tls-authz situation)

2009-02-11 Thread Alessandro Vesely
Doug Ewell wrote: I thought Stallman was considered a major religious figure. Only when he wears that hat http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/St._Ignucius ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Last Call: draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes (DiameterCommand Code Registration for Third Generation PartnershipProject (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)) to Informational RFC

2009-02-11 Thread Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cullen, The current allocation policy is defined by RFC 3588, section 11.2.1 which indeed makes no distinction between permanent, standard commands and vendor-specific command codes and requires IETF consensus for all. This will be fixed by

RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-08

2009-02-11 Thread Ingemar Johansson S
Hi Thanks for the comments, I will fix this later on as I get more comments. As regards to the minor issue in 4.2.1. I am not sure here, I would say that it is important to stress that an application must verify that delivery of reduced-size RTCP is successful. I would personally prefer a MUST

FW: [IP] TODAY: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS

2009-02-11 Thread Livingood, Jason
This campaign continues: -- Forwarded Message From: Dave Farber d...@farber.net Reply-To: Dave Farber d...@farber.net Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:20:23 -0500 To: ip i...@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] TODAY: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS Begin forwarded message: From: Seth

RE: FWIW: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

2009-02-11 Thread Pasi.Eronen
Simon Josefsson wrote: 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

Re: FW: [IP] TODAY: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS

2009-02-11 Thread Noel Chiappa
From: Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com This campaign continues: Time to turn of posting by non-subscribers. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt

2009-02-11 Thread Bob Jolliffe
Hello I am writing to add my voice to those calling on the IESG not to approve this draft. I am a subscriber to this list and have tried to read and thoughtfully digest what has been said already before adding my two cents. It seems clear that, whereas the IPR Disclosure statement asserts that

Re: Review of draft-ietf-tls-authz-extns-07

2009-02-11 Thread Thierry Moreau
Dear all: Two observations on the IPR analysis found below inline. Some text is highlighted to support my observations. Eric Rescorla wrote: SUMMARY I do not believe this document should be advanced to Proposed Standard at this time. First, it is not clear that there is really sufficient

Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt

2009-02-11 Thread Stephan Wenger
Hi, On 2/11/09 3:21 PM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolli...@gmail.com wrote: [...] I think (I hope) their is a general consensus that IETF standards should be freely implementable and usable for the manner in which they are intended. The phrase freely implementable and usable may be the key

RE: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

2009-02-11 Thread Powers Chuck-RXCP20
I am curious - is this a commitment by the TLS chairs to actually work on this document? Or simply an attempt to prevent the IESG from advancing a document that the WG previously declined to work on, and could easily do so again? I have no strong feelings on the document itself, as it is out of

Re: Review of draft-ietf-tls-authz-extns-07

2009-02-11 Thread Scott Brim
Excerpts from Thierry Moreau on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 09:53:42AM -0500: You seem to assume that patent rights are created by the IPR disclosure, while they are created by the *patent* (in this case still at the application stage) that you didn't study. Actually intellectual property rights are

Re: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

2009-02-11 Thread Melinda Shore
On 2/11/09 9:47 AM, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 chuck.pow...@motorola.com wrote: I am curious - is this a commitment by the TLS chairs to actually work on this document? Or simply an attempt to prevent the IESG from advancing a document that the WG previously declined to work on, and could easily do

Re: Review of draft-ietf-tls-authz-extns-07

2009-02-11 Thread Thierry Moreau
Scott Brim wrote: Excerpts from Thierry Moreau on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 09:53:42AM -0500: You seem to assume that patent rights are created by the IPR disclosure, while they are created by the *patent* (in this case still at the application stage) that you didn't study. Actually

Re: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

2009-02-11 Thread Ralf Weber
Moin! On 11.02.2009, at 14:16, Theodore Tso wrote: No, actually. Point 3 is very tightly constrained to certain types of Agreements, where Agreements is defined in point 2. Point 4 is about countersigning authorizations, presumably with the intention of forwawrding them to a 3rd party. There

Re: Review of draft-ietf-tls-authz-extns-07

2009-02-11 Thread Simon Josefsson
Thierry Moreau thierry.mor...@connotech.com writes: You seem to assume that patent rights are created by the IPR disclosure, while they are created by the *patent* (in this case still at the application stage) that you didn't study. I've seen you claim this a few times, and I wish to attempt

Re: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

2009-02-11 Thread Michael StJohns
Hi Eric - I went to review the bidding on the TLS mailing list covering this period and it appears the archives at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/maillist.htmlhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/maillist.html only go back to the beginning of the year. Could you

Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt

2009-02-11 Thread Simon Josefsson
Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org writes: Hi, On 2/11/09 3:21 PM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolli...@gmail.com wrote: [...] I think (I hope) their is a general consensus that IETF standards should be freely implementable and usable for the manner in which they are intended. The phrase freely

Re: Review of draft-ietf-tls-authz-extns-07

2009-02-11 Thread Thierry Moreau
Simon Josefsson wrote: When evaluating whether to implement a particular technology, you need to evaluate all the risks. The text of patent (applications) helps in the evaluation. My point is that the actions of patent holders is significantly more relevant. Dear Simon: Interesting,

Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt

2009-02-11 Thread Stephan Wenger
Hi Simon, On 2/11/09 4:43 PM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote: Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org writes: [...] The way to address this misalignment is to work in the IETF towards an FSF-compatible patent regime, and not rant about one specific draft that somehow got on the FSF's

Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt

2009-02-11 Thread Bob Jolliffe
Hi 2009/2/11 Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org: Hi, On 2/11/09 3:21 PM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolli...@gmail.com wrote: [...] I think (I hope) their is a general consensus that IETF standards should be freely implementable and usable for the manner in which they are intended. The phrase freely

Re: Review of draft-ietf-tls-authz-extns-07

2009-02-11 Thread Aaron Williamson
Thierry, Do you have any guidelines / methodology / evaluation criteria / sources of precedents or any other sources of law? According to those, one could turn emprircal-observations-of-patent-holder-actions into a) an evaluation whether to implement and/or b) an evaluation whether to

Re: It's time for some new steps

2009-02-11 Thread Randy Presuhn
Hi - From: Wes Hardaker wjh...@hardakers.net To: Scott Brim s...@employees.org Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:22 PM Subject: Re: It's time for some new steps ... FYI, I unsubscribed twice. The first method (logging in with my assigned password and hitting

Re: patent threat for draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07

2009-02-11 Thread Clint Chaplin
Undergoing a ballot? Is it possible these people believe that they're stuffing a ballot box? Shows they do not understand what an IETF last call is about. On 2/9/09, Rich Schultz r...@tellme.com wrote: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07 is currently undergoing a ballot to become a proposed

The Dean list (was: It's time for some new steps)

2009-02-11 Thread Andrew Sullivan
I also was resubscribed. I received the usual totally clarifying message one has come to expect from Mr Anderson. None of this suggests to me, however, that we ought to do something. My understanding (and I'd appreciate being disabused if I'm wrong) is that Mr Anderson is already not

Re: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

2009-02-11 Thread ned+ietf
... I did spend some time reading the draft, the IPR disclosure and before stating an opinion it would be nice if the people that have dealt with it longer could tell me if what I got out of it is correct so far. 1. RedPhone Security applied for some patents that we are talking about here

Re: Last Call: draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes (DiameterCommand Code Registration for Third Generation PartnershipProject (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)) to Informational RFC

2009-02-11 Thread Cullen Jennings
Thanks Dan and Jouni, Seems reasonable. I did not know about 3588bis. Cullen On Feb 11, 2009, at 1:53 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: Cullen, The current allocation policy is defined by RFC 3588, section 11.2.1 which indeed makes no distinction between permanent, standard commands and

Re: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

2009-02-11 Thread Aaron Williamson
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: I completely disagree with this assessment. The points you mention are quite specifically talking about Agreements, not certificates. Yes, this is obviously right, Agreements are not certificates. But I don't think it's clear that storing Agreements covers

Re: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

2009-02-11 Thread Tim Polk
Eric Joe, In retrospect, I certainly should have consulted with the TLS WG before initiating yet another Last Call. I failed to do so because the controversy had not centered on technical questions, but a great deal of time has passed, and the mechanism is clearly relevant to the scope of

Re: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

2009-02-11 Thread SM
At 11:37 11-02-2009, Tim Polk wrote: I will rectify the situation this week and request that the TLS WG review the document to gauge interest in this area. I would be delighted to Are you requesting that the TLS WG review an Internet-Draft that expired in December 2006? Regards, -sm

Re: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

2009-02-11 Thread ned+ietf
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: I completely disagree with this assessment. The points you mention are quite specifically talking about Agreements, not certificates. Yes, this is obviously right, Agreements are not certificates. But I don't think it's clear that storing Agreements

Re: patent threat for draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07

2009-02-11 Thread Simon Josefsson
Clint Chaplin clint.chap...@gmail.com writes: Undergoing a ballot? Is it possible these people believe that they're stuffing a ballot box? Shows they do not understand what an IETF last call is about. The term ballot is used in several places to describe the IESG decision process, for

Writeup (not) [Re: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard]

2009-02-11 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 2009-02-12 08:09, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: ... P.S. I've read the IPR dlsclosure and the patents claims, but what would be useful to see is the document shepard writeup. Are those available somewhere online? If they are I don't know where to find them and I was unable to coerce

TLS authorization

2009-02-11 Thread Aaron Griffin
Dear IETF, Please do not follow through with the patent-laden TLS authorization spec. The internet thrives on being open, and requiring us to pay homage to any one entity (RedPhone Security) to use the internet is only going to backfire. Please rethink this. The internet was created in the spirit

LC announcements -- lessons to be learned?

2009-02-11 Thread Alfred Hönes
Hello all, as a result of the recent avalanche of messages on the IETF General Discussion list, I suggest to apply the following two changes to IETF LC announcements: (a) To better qualify the action expected, replace the clause: | ... Please send substantive comments to ... by: | ...

How does the IETF work? (was:Re: Ah, I see the cause of the situation now... (tls-authz situation)

2009-02-11 Thread Alessandro Vesely
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: I think Melinda makes a good point here. [..] RMS has a certain number of supporters who are willing to write letters. That does not mean that RMS's opinion should hold greater weight than that of other people. We must assume that each writer is expressing

Comments opposing TLS-authz proposed standard

2009-02-11 Thread Aram
The proposed standard for TLS-authz includes patent protected elements which potentially disadvantage certain market participants while leaving no meaningful alternative. The IETF should oppose this standard until RedPhone provides a royalty-free license for all users or otherwise ensures that

Comment on proposed TLS authorisation

2009-02-11 Thread Leon
Dear Sir/Madam, I have just heard that a draft IEFT standard, TLS authorisation, which is apparently patented by a company called RedPhone Security is being proposed as a standard. If this is true, I wish to register my protest against such a move. IETF standards have historically been one of the

No patent-encumbered standards, please.

2009-02-11 Thread Ben Miller-Jacobson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am writing in opposition to the proposed TLS Authorization standard. RedPhone Security currently holds a patent related to this proposed standard, and though they are willing to let anyone implement it, they could still sue anyone who uses it. Until

opposing TLS-authz standardization

2009-02-11 Thread P. Oscar Boykin
I am writing to voice my opposition to the IETF standardizing a patented algorithm (TLS-authz) which has not been offered with complete royalty-free license to all. As a researcher in the area of P2P networking, I rely on open-source code to educate my students. Standards which make open-source

comments on IETF proposed TLS authorization

2009-02-11 Thread Carl Nelson
Good folks, After receiving the briefing email from the FSF, I am moved to send you this note requesting that the TLS authorization standard not go forward until/unless RedPhone provide a royalty-free license for all users or equivalent arrangement. Sincerely, Carl Nelson 1321 Vernon

re: (TLS) Authorization Extensions

2009-02-11 Thread Parker, Carlton L
To Whom It May Concern; 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.

Proposed TLS-authz standard

2009-02-11 Thread Chris Charles
Dear IETF member: It appears that the following patent-encumbered spec is being considered as a future Internet standard: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg05617.html Please reconsider. The Internet has been very successful due largely to its use of open

Request for TLS Authorization Extensions Rejection

2009-02-11 Thread cipindo . tanjaya
Dear IETF committee members, I believe that IETF supports the advance of the Internet by publishing free and open standards that everyone can freely use. Unfortunately, a proposed standard entitled TLS Authorization Extensions is not free to be used by anyone. The main concern is that

RedPhone Patent On TLS Authorization

2009-02-11 Thread Denis Combs
Please Sir, I do not believe that using patented code or components within TLS Authorization protocols or Standards is at all a good idea, and I strongly disapprove of the proposal for a standard for TLS by RedPhone that would use such patents. I believe that approval of such a standard could

standard for TLS authorisation

2009-02-11 Thread Monique Chartrand
Bonjour, 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. Monique

Please do not approve standard for TLS authorization

2009-02-11 Thread Edgar J Young
Please do not approve the proposed patent encumbered standard for TLS authorization. There must be an alternative. Please push back. Open standards which can be used by everybody (rich or poor) are extremely important to the development of and access to the internet ... This is a PRIVATE

Re: [PCN] Last Call: draft-ietf-pcn-architecture (Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Architecture) to Informational RFC

2009-02-11 Thread Fortune HUANG
Hi all, There are still some places in in draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-09 where the ingress/ingress-node might be misused. Clarification or editorial changes are required in those places. Please see the detailed comments below. 6.2. Flow termination : In one approach the PCN-egress-node

TLS AUTHORIZATION STANDARD PROPOSAL

2009-02-11 Thread gotami
Internet Engineering Task Force members: The standard for TLS authorization that was introduced in the IETF for consideration isn't really a standard but, a restriction because the technology depends on, or is at least encumbered by, the patent that Redphone has applied for. A standard

Reject the proposed TLS-authz standard

2009-02-11 Thread Lucas
Internet Engineering Task Force, Recently, I have been made aware of an IETF proposed standard named TLS-authz (TLS authorization). If this becomes a standard, a patent RedPhone Security holds will become an issue for free software users worldwide. Redphone is gracious enough, now, to offer a

serious concerns on TLS authorization standard enclosure

2009-02-11 Thread jaromil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I stand with the many voices protesting: Much of the communication on the Internet happens between computers according to standards that define common languages. If we are going to live in a free world using free software, our software

In protest of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

2009-02-11 Thread jim . smilanich
Sirs; I am writing to protest moving forward with Fourth Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns in part because I find the announcement disingenuous at best. The announcement on the email list quotes IPR 1026: Since the third Last Call, RedPhone Security filed IETF IPR disclosure 1026. This

Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions

2009-02-11 Thread Jim Sansing
As a developer of a network IDS (http://realeyes.sourceforge.net) that is licensed under the GPL, I am very concerned about the proposed patent-encumbered standard for TLS authorization. If this becomes a recommended standard, I am afraid that I would not be able to include analysis of it in my

FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

2009-02-11 Thread John Sullivan
The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project oppose publication of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) as a proposed standard. We do not think that RedPhone Security's 1026 disclosure filing provides sufficient assurance to free software

TLS Authorization: Proposed Patent-Encumbered Standard

2009-02-11 Thread jpangamarca
To whom it may concern: I'm writing this letter to ask you to not approve proposed patent-encumbered standard for TLS Authorization. Standards encumbered by patents, as you should know well, hurt the industrial and technological progress, as well as the trust put on standards organizations that

Please don't patent TLS! (TLS-authz)

2009-02-11 Thread Jubal Kessler
Greetings, Please don't approve any standard, or proposed standard, for TLS! I am a long-time UNIX systems administrator and recent software developer, of late at Sendmail, Inc., which implements several products that make use of TLS -- including the old standby, sendmail (STARTTLS and

Re: [A2k] TODAY/URGENT: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS

2009-02-11 Thread Jeffrey A. Williams
Seth and all, I agree, the IETF needs to be allot more forceful here. Why they are not in this instance is difficult for me to understand and goes against IETF tradition as well. Seth Johnson wrote: (Urgent. Send your note TODAY and CONFIRM the automatic reply from IETF. You can cc

TLS authorization

2009-02-11 Thread malcolm mcqueen
I urge you to be vigilant in ensuring that no patent-encumbered standards are set. Standards must be open. Malcolm McQueen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

restricting access to standard protocol languages

2009-02-11 Thread Michelle Wang
Hi. I have to start with a confession; I'm not a programmer and don't know much about computers, I just use my computer for school, work and communication to family and friends. I consider that stuff pretty important, though. I caught wind that there was a proposal to make some common protocol

Please do not approve TLS authorisation as a standard

2009-02-11 Thread Morgan Read
Dear IETF For all the reasons below, and because not even eternal vigilance will buy us freedom if what is said is said behind closed doors, please do not approve TLS authorisation as a standard. Much of the communication on the Internet happens between computers according to standards that

Comment on proposed patent-encumbered TLS authorization standard

2009-02-11 Thread Melbourne E. Wells
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the patent-encumbered standard for TLS authorization. Open, patent-free standards are vital to the continued health of the software engineering community as a whole. Any successful attempt to surreptitiously inject patent-encumbered standards

Please reject Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions

2009-02-11 Thread Nolan Andres
Hello, I am writing this email to request that the IETF reject the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) as a proposed standard. The licensing declaration from RedPhone provides caveats that I believe leave opportunity for future claims against

RE proposed standard draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07

2009-02-11 Thread Ryan McIntosh
Please reject this patent encumbered proposed standard. The world has enough proprietary software. RedPhone's Licensing Declaration: The values provided in, and the processing required by the authorizations (authz_data in the Protocol Document) sent or received using the techniques defined

TLS authorization standard

2009-02-11 Thread Scott Mace
I oppose the IETF standard for TLS authorization until RedPhone provides a royalty-free license for all users. Failing to do so sets a bad precedent for future IETF standards adoption. Sincerely, Scott Mace Berkeley, California ___ Ietf mailing list

Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt

2009-02-11 Thread Bryan Venable
IETF, I am a web application Performance Engineer for a major SaaS hosting provider. My customers and I rely on free and open standards to build web applications that are useful, powerful and openly compatible with the widest possible range of software. In order for these standards to remain

We are against TLS

2009-02-11 Thread Tomer Cohen
Please don't accept the patent-encumbered standard for TLS authorization. Doing so will allow a single entity to control the use of the standard and will weaken the authority of the IETF. -- Tomer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org

please do not publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

2009-02-11 Thread Ward Vandewege
To whom it may concern, I hear that you are trying to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed standard, despite serious issues regarding a patent by RedPhone Security: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg05617.html I urge you *not* to publish this draft

draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt

2009-02-11 Thread yesmar
Hello, I am writing to voice my concern over the new IETF TLS authorization draft, Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt. This draft is encumbered by patents and thus should not be made an Internet standard. We need to endeavor to keep the

Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

2009-02-11 Thread Willie Gillespie
I don't know anything about patents and how they all work -- so I am probably speaking out of place. Is it possible to just have RedPhone re-issue the Licensing Declaration with better wording? Willie John Sullivan wrote: The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project oppose publication

Re: LC announcements -- lessons to be learned?

2009-02-11 Thread Paul Hoffman
At 3:17 PM +0100 2/11/09, Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= wrote: | ... Please send substantive comments to ... by: | ... Please read this document and send substantive comments to ... +1 To simplify the resource pointers, and thereby better guide readers to more information available online

Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

2009-02-11 Thread Paul Hoffman
At 12:28 PM -0500 2/11/09, John Sullivan wrote: The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project oppose publication of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) as a proposed standard. We do not think that RedPhone Security's 1026 disclosure filing

Re: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

2009-02-11 Thread David Morris
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Aaron Williamson wrote: ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: I completely disagree with this assessment. The points you mention are quite specifically talking about Agreements, not certificates. Yes, this is obviously right, Agreements are not certificates. But I don't

Re: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

2009-02-11 Thread ned+ietf
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Aaron Williamson wrote: ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: I completely disagree with this assessment. The points you mention are quite specifically talking about Agreements, not certificates. Yes, this is obviously right, Agreements are not certificates. But I

If you install Mail Filters how is the list integrity to be documented?

2009-02-11 Thread TSG
There is a serious concern that when individuals are 'filtered out of IETF lists' whether by official or unofficial means, that their voices are prevented from being included into the IETF standards process. Are there any thoughts on how filters in mailing lists should be documented? Todd

RE: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

2009-02-11 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Could I just point out here the real risk that this relevant objection might get lost in the sea of irrelevant aggitation from the FSF supporters? From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Eric Rescorla Sent: Tue 2/10/2009 11:57 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject:

Re: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

2009-02-11 Thread Steven M. Bellovin
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:29:05 -0800 Hallam-Baker, Phillip pba...@verisign.com wrote: Could I just point out here the real risk that this relevant objection might get lost in the sea of irrelevant aggitation from the FSF supporters? I agree. Let's move the substantive discussion to the TLS

Re: If you install Mail Filters how is the list integrity to be documented?

2009-02-11 Thread Sam Hartman
TSG == TSG tglas...@earthlink.net writes: TSG There is a serious concern that when individuals are TSG 'filtered out of IETF lists' whether by official or TSG unofficial means, that their voices are prevented from being TSG included into the IETF standards process. I'd feel