Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz

["James Seng" <james at seng.sg>]

Not that I am not sympathetic to what GNU and FSF is campaigning for,
the working principle of IETF is based on running codes and rough
consensus.  "Votes" or "Petitions" is not part of IETF process the
last time I check.

I am not familiar with draft-housley-tls-authz-extns but if the only
objections is that there are patents surrounding it, I don't see any
harm proceeding it as an Experimental RFC.

If there are other valid reasons to stop the publication of the draft,
we should review it.

It is also important to note how many objected to the publication. I
suggest the moderator (if there is one) to held up all petition
furthers and just post a summary of how many petitions received at the
end.

-James Seng

On 10/27/07, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>     > From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com>
>
>     > 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.
>
> I concur - and I think this is the action we should take, no matter how many
> emails we see from people we've never heard from before (and probably never
> will again).
>
>         Noel
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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