Experimental makes sense for tls-authz

["Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com>]

Given the current email activity on this issue, I want to echo Randy's support.
We have published encumbered experimental and informational documents 
on many occasions.  I can see no reason not to do so in this 
case.  Given that it appears that experimental publication is 
sufficient for the registration needs that go with this document, I 
strongly support publication.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 02:04 PM 10/26/2007, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
> The existence of IPR claims potentially relevant to the implementation
> of a specification has never been sufficient grounds to block the
> publication of that specification as an RFC.  Given the unfortunate
> history of this work, publication of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
> as experimental seems to be the most sensible path out of this mess.
>
> If the IPR terms are indeed so onerous as to preclude widespread
> implementation, as seems to be the concern of some, then it will
> simply gather dust with other "experiments" that didn't work out,
> and the open source community need not worry.  If, on the other
> hand, this technology is so superior to anything the open source
> community can offer as an alternative, then Darwin will go to work.
>
> None of the recent argumentation has been technical. None of the
> recent argumentation has provided a convincing procedural reason
> to block publication of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns.  Let's just
> hand it over to the RFC editor and be done with it.
>
> Randy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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