I donot see attachment on the ietf website in list archive. Is attachment not allowed? Attaching again On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Samir Srivastava <samirs.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
Attachment:
Letter Copy (1).pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document