Sorry the attachment is the application for impeachment of President USA in which Supreme Court did not do anything. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Samir Srivastava <samirs.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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