> Randy Presuhn wrote: > > Hi - > > The existence of IPR claims potentially relevant to the > implementation of a specification has never been sufficient > grounds to block the publication of that specification as an > RFC. Given the unfortunate history of this work, publication > of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as experimental seems to be > the most sensible path out of this mess. > > If the IPR terms are indeed so onerous as to preclude > widespread implementation, as seems to be the concern of > some, then it will simply gather dust with other > "experiments" that didn't work out, and the open source > community need not worry. If, on the other hand, this > technology is so superior to anything the open source > community can offer as an alternative, then Darwin will go to work. > > None of the recent argumentation has been technical. None of > the recent argumentation has provided a convincing procedural > reason to block publication of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns. > Let's just hand it over to the RFC editor and be done with it. > > Randy +1 If there is a technical reason for opposing the publication of this as an Experimental RFC, please make that argument. Otherwise, let the Experimental RFC track do what it was designed to do, and determine what interest (if any) there is in this technology in the industry. regards, Chuck _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf