Subject: Re: TLS-authz "experimental" standard and RESPONSIBILITY TO PUBLISH

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:22:14 -0800

Mr. Wilbur,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Wilbur" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

> To those considering the TLS-authz proposal:
>
> The patent shenanigans of RedPhone Security have reduced implementation
> status from "open" to "taxed at the whim of RedPhone Security."  This
> should be enough to disqualify the proposal from further consideration
> unless, and until, RedPhone Security grants a royalty-free license for
> all users.
>
> The imprimatur of the IETF should remain reserved for open standards.

Garbage. The IETF's Standards ***MUST*** by the definition's of the IETF per 
RFC2026 and other documents,  be available to any and all period. That means 
that ALL must be able to use the IETF to standardize an IP based system or 
protocol without concern whether they are OpenSource or licensed under some 
Creative Common's type license, or are available for Commercial Operator's 
only.

The IETF's value is its vetting process and refusing to allow people to use 
that is both civil and criminal IMHO.

>
> Thank you for considering my position.

You are welcome, and wrong IMHO. There is a direct liabiliy which becomes 
one which those who participate in voting to 'prevent any particular 
initiative' to advance are liable for and that is tortuous interference with 
another's economic betterment. Bluntly these liabilities put the IETF into a 
mode where I describe it as "running hog-wild into a situation where not 
only the WG's member's would be liable but their Sponsor's as well, and the 
IETF Management too" and what they are liable  for is participating in 
'freezing out' various initiatives. I refer to this as fostering this 
"nightmare of lies" when the IETF represents itself as open and fair.

For instance, currently per the BCP78 Submission Rules, there is the NO DUTY 
TO PUBLISH submissions in the submission of those IP's to the IETF, but if 
that is true, then the IETF is not  open or fair, since it can vote without 
any defintion of how or why, to not publish something based on no real set 
of controls today, making that vote totally arbitrary. Since that Vote would 
happen after the IP has been transfered to the IETF, this becomes easily 
analyzed and claims filed with Law Enformcement. The submission of IP for 
standardization prevents that same IP from being filed with ANY OTHER SDO, 
meaning that the IETF can and does prevent those IP's from being considered 
if it refuses to publish them. .

In fact, since there is no control on what or who or how a decission is made 
not to publish submission's, and since there is no method of determining the 
value of any IP 'Gift' then the IETF is through its processes intentionally 
preventing things from both being properly valued or advanced through the 
IETF's processes.

That means I think that in fact there is a direct responsibility to publish 
ANYTHING sent to the IETF to prevent the IETF from directly being liable 
since it also demands that any IP sent to it become's it's property, meaning 
that the IETF is 100% liable for acts which it prevents from being 
published.

Todd Glassey

>
> Sincerely,
>
> Richard Wilbur
> Senior Software Developer
> Server Software
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg