At Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:26:33 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 2007-10-19 03:30, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > ... > > > To clarify that the part of the community that I'm a member of is not > > interested in supporting this technology, we have decided to remove our > > implementation. See the announcement for GnuTLS in: > > > > ** TLS authorization support removed. > > This technique may be patented in the future, and it is not of crucial > > importance for the Internet community. After deliberation we have > > concluded that the best thing we can do in this situation is to > > encourage society not to adopt this technique. We have decided to > > lead the way with our own actions. > > <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.network.gnutls.general/955> > > I don't consider that a good argument for censoring the document. > > We might consider publishing it as Informational, like other RFCs > that are published "for the record" . This means deciding between > guidelines 3 and 4 in http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/info-exp.html. > > (BTW, should that be an ION?) Brian, I don't really have a strong opinion about whether this document should be published as Experimental, Informational, or not at all, but I don't really understand your argument here: 1. I don't see how this is an issue of censorship. It's not like the authors couldn't publish the document on their Web site or wherever. 2. The issue isn't so much document publication as the code point assignment that goes with it. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf