Sorry I donot have time to change the subject. Can Protocol become science. Our understanding of the problem domain is incorrect. Pl refer the attached provisional patent application. I am on the protest at 3245 NW 31st Terr Oakland Park FL 33309. I am facing lot of issues. Pl help me. I will provide the patent details in the next email, if I am okay. I wanted to make protocol as science.We need to stop working on flurry of the documents. When I was working on Cashless Economy, the money earned I wanted to fund this. But I am stuck with big powers so I am left with no other choice to fight this battle in court. Thanks Samir Who hated patents embedded in standards Refer the blog http://samirsrivastava.typepad.com/ On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I support this document going forward. Below I suggest four improvements to the document. > > (1) In Introduction says: > > Note that this document doesn't apply to use of TLS in MTA-to-MTA > SMTP. > > Can this be enhanced to include a pointer to where this can be found? > > > (2) The next paragraph in the Introduction says: > > The main goal of the document is to provide consistent TLS server > identity verification procedure across multiple email related > protocols. > > Since this is a standards-track document, I think it would be better to say: > > This document provides a consistent TLS server identity > verification procedure across multiple email related protocols. > > > (3) Section 2 does a lot by reference, which is fine. I think it would help the reader to duplicate a bit of context from RFC 6125, in particular repeating the definitions of CN-ID, DNS-ID, and SRV-ID. > > > (4) Section 3 needs to state first that the certificate passes certification path validation as described in Section 6 of RFC 5280, and second passes the email-specific rules in this section. > > Russ
Attachment:
Letter Copy (1).pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document