Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >If we use different terminology to identify this IETF RFC, how does that > change anything? Paul Hoffman replied: > Because you earlier complained about IETF standards having known patent > issues. Now we are talking about experimental protocols that are not > standards. And I am saying that it doesn't make a bit of difference legally. If you infringe for experimental reasons, that is still infringement. I don't think we should publish under the IETF imprimatur if there are *unresolved* known patent issues about which ignorant and cautious people continue to speculate blindly. Why should any of us waste time and money on IETF and commercial and FOSS "experiments" if they may cost us too much money downstream? Its authors are free to publish draft-housley-tls-authz already. Google is free to index that document already. Why do you insist upon granting it an IETF RFC status without first deciding if the disclosed patent claims are likely bogus? /Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:31 AM > To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz > > At 10:22 AM -0700 3/10/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >If we use different terminology to identify this IETF RFC, how does that > change anything? > > Because you earlier complained about IETF standards having known patent > issues. Now we are talking about experimental protocols that are not > standards. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf