On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 2016-01-18 23:07, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >> ... >> 1) It is quite possible that following current registration practices, >> someone else might apply for mmm and the registration would be >> granted. And then my only recourse might be a lawsuit. >> ... > > > How does "First-Come-First-Serve" make that better? Doesn't it even make it > worse? > >> 2) I may not be able to provide the specification, either because the >> protocol is experimental or proprietary. >> ... > > > "Experimental", as far as I understand, isn't a problem per se. Sorry, hit return too soon. Have undone all the effect of merging my earlier responses. The reason I might not want to publish an experimental spec is to avoid it becoming a competitor to a standard we intend to create later on. For example, right now in the lab I have a dalek we are fitting with a drive system, motorizing the dome, manipulator arm, gun etc. The current design has message level authentication and encryption. The point being to demonstrate that applying crypto at the lowest levels of circuit design is practical. I am planning to share that code in the dalek building community and with other builders of similar robots. But the protocols themselves are very specific. I would not want to propose them as the basis for a standard, any standard would be built on what we learned. Point is that I don't want my standards proposals competing with my experiments. We had that with HTTP/0.9 which was a pain in the patootie for over a decade despite the fact it was only active for less than a year.