Dear All: As promised last night, I have sent the FSF's Campaign E-Mail address an E-Mail detailing the following: "Dear Sirs: Good morning! During the ensuing discussion at the IETF concerning TLS-authz, I found out about several avenues that may be more productive to channel input than the general mailing list. In sharing these, hopefully you can help those who are interested in this subject and who want to participate in the process to reach the right people and make their voices heard in the right place. * File an IPR disclosure if a specific instance of encumberance can be found: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/, thus bringing attention to the subject directly to the relevant task force and all interested parties. (Ideally, this should only be done once per IPR discovered, as having "duplicate" disclosures would be counterproductive to your cause) * Review the latest disclosure from RedPhone (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1026/) and determine if the IPR disclosed is unsatisfactory or too wide-reaching. If it is, send your queries and concerns directly to the assigned Working Group (which, supposedly, should be http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/tls-charter.html , though admittedly it is not appearing in their list of current internet drafts. I will look into this and see why such is the case) * Users who do not do the above steps should join the IUCG (http://iucg.org/) so that you may contribute to the discussion in the context of internet users who are concerned by the proposal, and join in the discussion about what is troubling and how it may be resolved. Hopefully this helps!" The only problem I ran into, which I must follow up on, is why the TLS working group doesn't seem to have jurisdiction over the draft in question (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07). The draft in question must've been considered an individual submission, according to RFC 2026. I was told that I should direct those interested in discussion of the subject to the appropriate working group for discussion with them directly as opposed to in the general list, however that currently seems to not be possible. Is there any course of action I can advise in my follow-up E-Mail, or can they still go to the TLS working group with their concerns (if they feel the desire to do so)? Sincerely, Alex Loret de Mola Lead Software Engineer, iScan Services _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf