Subject: please REJECT tls-authz until it is patent-free!

From: Chris MacGregor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:56:13 -0700

Hello,

As a software engineering professional, I have experienced first-hand 
the harm done by patents on software.

I ask that you please REJECT any proposed standard (including those 
vying merely for "experimental" or "informational" status) which is 
encumbered by patents.  (If the patent is made available for free use by 
anyone, with no restrictions, registration, payment, or further 
licensing, then that is fine - it is effectively the same, for this 
purpose, as if the technique was not patented.)

There is no benefit to consumers, users, corporations, the software 
industry or art, or in fact anyone except the patent holder, when a 
standard is made to include patented techniques which must be licensed.  
It is the responsibility of a respected standards organization to resist 
pressure from those who seek to subvert the standardization processes 
for their own financial gain at the expense of EVERYONE else.

Therefore, please DO NOT allow the patent-encumbered TLS-authz extension 
to become even an experimental or informational standard - please REJECT 
it outright, unless and until it is made completely free (in all senses).

Thank you,
    Chris MacGregor
    Senior Software Engineer
    [email-masked]

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

preferable to a further
   encoding of the encoded form of the character."

Information about the code point? (It is numeric. It is an integer. It is n=
on-negative. It is in the range 0 to 10FFFF. It is even. It is divisible by=
 17. It is the same value as is found on the license plate of John Doe's ca=
r.) I think it is the code point itself that is to be preferred. Also, "a f=
urther encoding of the encoding form" isn't going to be clear to readers. (=
I'm not sure myself what these words mean themselves; I can guess at what t=
he author meant, though am not positive.)

Thus, I'd change this text to:

  "However, when
   information about characters is to be processed by people,
   reference to the Unicode code point is preferable to encoded
   representations of the code point."

Now, section 2 is talking about alternate representations of an encoded cha=
racter, but the flow is a bit mixed up, IMO. The first paragraph says that =
there are different equivalent representations but that the Unicode code po=
int is preferred. Then the next paragraph revisits the same thing in more d=
etail. The sentence from the first paragraph discussed above, once revised =
so that it makes a clear statement, already says what paragraph two says in=
 greater detail. Whether a more succinct or more detailed statement is pref=
erred, just say it once.

Of course, if the more detailed paragraph two is kept, "code point position=
 in the table" should be changed to "code point".

Also from paragraph two:

   "the UTF-8
   encoding or some other short-form encoding"

The term "short-form encoding" isn't explained here and may not be understo=
od. I can only guess what is meant. If the intended meaning is what I think=
 (a reference to shortest-form versus non-shortest-form UTF-8), then I don'=
t think it's really relevant. Either way, I'd change the wording to:

   "the UTF-8 encoding or some other encoding form"

(Encoding form is a term defined in the Unicode Standard.)

Also:

   "the other encodes the octets of"

I don't think octets are encoded; they are simply referenced using some not=
ational system. Thus, change to:

   "the other uses the octets of ... in some representation."

(This gives parallel wording for the two kinds of reference.)

Finally:

   "the Unicode code point forms"

Drop "forms":

   "the Unicode code points"

Peter Constable

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