+1 (or several) john --On Saturday, November 21, 2015 12:00 -0500 Mike StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Could I ask the list sergeant-at-arms consider remonstrating > with the poster below on the content of his posts and, if not > satisfied with the response, initiate a posting restriction > action. > > Thanks - Mike > > > On 11/21/2015 7:40 AM, Samir Srivastava wrote: >> 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 >