Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2007-10-27 07:04, 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.

I agree. The DOS attack on this list seems to be from people
who haven't read RFC 2026 and use meaningless phrases like
"experimental standard." In fact, publishing this as an experiment
to see if it gets implemented and deployed despite the IPR issue
seems like *exactly* the right thing to do.

    Brian

> 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