...@gmx.netmailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net,
ietf@ietf.orgmailto:ietf@ietf.org IETF
ietf@ietf.orgmailto:ietf@ietf.org, Eran Hammer-lahav
e...@hueniverse.commailto:e...@hueniverse.com, oauth WG
oa...@ietf.orgmailto:oa...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Second Last Call: draft-hammer-hostmeta-16.txt (Web
The IETF, like any other standard body, isn't about publishing idea or
inventing things, but all about enabling interoperability between discrete
implementations and parties. Patents do not enable interoperability on their
own because of their nature and limitations (at least in the US).
I am supportive of updating *a* registry.
The OAuth working group has an open requirement for standard identifiers to
describe hash/digest functions.
What is not clear to me is the relationship of this registry and:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-names/
which seems to
-
From: Anthony Bryan [mailto:anthonybr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 5:21 PM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; HTTP Working Group (ietf-http...@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update
(Additional Hash Algorithms for HTTP Instance
Is every single RIM employee going to send this to the list?
EHL
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
With regard to the recent
This draft is the original community specification created outside the IETF. It
was this work that inspired the creation of the OAUTH WG and is explicitly set
as the initial draft for the WG in its charter. The draft is submitted as an
informational RFC to document existing deployment and
If by engage you mean continue to discuss the terms of having a meeting in
China, then I agree. If the government there really wants to host an IETF
meeting, they should be able to help changes these terms to focus on
individuals and not the entire event or organization.
But to suggest that
If someone fails to read the front page of an RFC which clearly states what
that document is and is not, that is their problem. There is no excuse for
stupidity or laziness.
There is a real problem with people thinking that RFC == Free License. We need
to educate people and maybe consider new
-Original Message-
From: Mohsen BANAN [mailto:lists-i...@mohsen.banan.1.byname.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:01 PM
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:31:27 -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav
e...@hueniverse.com said:
Eran There is no connection between the document status (standard,
info
When you say IETF RFC, do you also include RFC-Editor track informational RFCs?
EHL
On 3/10/09 3:08 PM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Institute the policy as you suggest and you have just given the patent
trolls the power to place an indefinite hold on
My concern regarding this announcement is the fact that it gives support to a
misguided effort by Liberty Alliance. I think it is somewhat irresponsible for
the ISOC to actively support an effort without first engaging the community at
large to fully understand the dynamics of the identity
11 matches
Mail list logo
