Re: Last call comments about draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07

[EKR <ekr at networkresonance.com>]

Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU> writes:

>   *> FWIW, I don't think we want to start bouncing specs because they
>   *> don't pay homage - in this case all the similarities are probably
>   *> the only obvious ways to add authorization tokens to a TLS
>   *> handshake. Such downrefs to dead documents would anyway add yet
>   *> more cruft to the RFC process, so let's not.
>   *> 
>   *> S.
>   *> 
>
> s/cruft/integrity/

On the general I think I agree with Stephen. While it's important to
give credit to direct antecedents to one's work, this isn't academic
publishing or a patent application and I don't think it's necessary to
cite all prior or related work, especially if the new work is not in
any way derived from the old. On the particular point of this draft,
since the reason that it's being re-LCed is that there are newly
disclosed IPR issues, it might be nice to be clear on what portions
are isomorphic to something that precedes the IPR filing so a reference
might be appropriate.

-Ekr




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf