Given the current email activity on this issue, I want to echo Randy's support.
We have published encumbered experimental and informational documents
on many occasions. I can see no reason not to do so in this
case. Given that it appears that experimental publication is
sufficient for the registration needs that go with this document, I
strongly support publication.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 02:04 PM 10/26/2007, 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
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf