SM wrote: > As there seems to be only one implementation and very little public > discussion about the draft, I don't see why it should be on the > Standards Track. I don't see any pressing need to publish these at all, especially given the (unfriendly IMO) IPR disclosure and (what I believe) is the total lack of any demand for this technology. I'd be for not publishing them. Is this a case of I-Ds whose only real purpose is to stoke the marketing machine of the IPR-holders? If so, is that something we should ignore or push back against? Stephen. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf