Subject: Re: [TLS] Comments on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07 (fwd)

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 17:29:03 -0400 (EDT)

[I corrected a couple things]

I believe the IESG announced that it would be sending this draft back to
the 'starting gate'.  To me, that means that TLS has to do several
things:

1) Consider non-patented alternatives in accordance with RFC2418 and
RFC3979.

2) Obtain a thorough review and consensus per RFC2026 and RFC2418.

3) Pass a working group last-call, per RFC2026 and RFC2418.

So, the TLS working group should consider and process the draft as
though it were just now submitted for the first time.

As I understand the IESG position, it is not considering publication at
the present time, and the document is not presently on the IESG agenda,
and will not be on the agenda until a last-call is requested by the TLS
working group chair. If my understanding is not correct, please correct
me.

With the above understanding:

I am against the current draft as it stands on the grounds that it is
patented, and a non-patented alternative is easily found. No
non-patented alternative has been discussed. This is a technical
objection.

Furthermore, I oppose the corrupt acts of the IETF official in
concealing the patent from the IESG while accepting money to write and
promote the draft.  The authors have already admitted to both knowing of
the patent and knowing of the IETF patent policy for the entire
development of the draft, and still concealed the patent from the IESG
and IETF community. A software patent is often worth millions of dollars
for justification of investment capital (that doesn't count the economic
harms, though). A patented software standard is worth many times more.  
The economic motives of the deception are impossible to avoid, and while
this isn't entirely a technical objection [though it is an objection
based on the abuse of IETF process by the authors as permitted by
RFC2026], I think a moral and ethical objection to this draft is quite
appropriate and allowed by RFC2026.

		--Dean

On Mon, 28 May 2007, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> We have a request from the IESG re draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.
> 
> The IESG is considering publication of this document as a Proposed
> Standard. The IESG has requested that the TLS WG provide input
> (positive or negative) on this proposal. Please post comments to the
> list before Monday June 11.

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls