On 2007-10-27 07:04, 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.
I agree. The DOS attack on this list seems to be from people who haven't read RFC 2026 and use meaningless phrases like "experimental standard." In fact, publishing this as an experiment to see if it gets implemented and deployed despite the IPR issue seems like *exactly* the right thing to do. Brian
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