Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz

[Ben Finney <ben+ietf at benfinney.id.au>]

David Morris <dwm at xpasc.com> writes:

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> > getting involved -- in particular, on this list. Are you saying
> > that people who take the time to post in this forum will be
> > ignored merely because what they say is not what you want to hear?
> 
> Absolutely, if they don't bother to stick around and read the
> subsequent discussion. Merely spaming this list does provide
> validity to the poster's point of view. Hanging around and
> participating and having the rest of the community observe the
> poster's qualifications first hand as they re-inforce their points
> is how they earn respect in this organization.

These people are asking that IETF reject technologies encumbered by
patents from the standards process, because they use the internet and
will be harmed by that. The reasons have been stated many times, and
remain valid even if not *every* poster makes them plain.

What qualifications are required to say "please don't allow patent
holders to use IETF to undermine the internet"?

> Repeated posts of what were essentially copies of boilerplate text
> by multiple people doesn't engen having Experimental RFC ad hoc standard. And in my opinion, not
so unrealistic. Furthermore, shouldn't be the burden of development of
alternative, non IPR problematic technologies, IETF's task?

Stjepan

> 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