TLS authorisation proposal

glyn moody <> Tue, 10 February 2009 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592D428C0FC for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:21:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24quauaeGgMo for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD993A6846 for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ewy14 with SMTP id 14so3002042ewy.13 for <>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:21:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eNICWN2Dcz9kkyyTZNh5NR1eJr1r/6Peic4+dcj5gQc=; b=ey2N/STTuJA5pKZrS9A6q5Cta+AmH2evifCKD8NETwCTq2JNH0jo6A99QeXhNWxJsA 464n7RtkNxcipaZRb21pyPeH9ebnd60o0WAvJDt6Ts/zBSJEMhprvLcYF/3zQvuNbwTN 9ow90uwHfdavHmM4sRSPgzKyoQ7A2zMl6CrJ4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=DTW7V2yiDFQeBTuQGq+bidOwmc8RMEoz5y+sPyFrrWZT4T8IsWnEFjbcXQyajyyUwY CY/fZP0YKgwZRl+gl/BxEpxPYsR203Q72io/6dqnjooMMBGuHc7yaC8uMiOgXZkoGoEx 5wCmHAa26xXI4C/SvGksU9GttUyPddKk9qxmE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id k3mr751788eba.116.1234261260908; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:21:00 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:21:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: TLS authorisation proposal
From: glyn moody <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015174bf1f004398004628dd8d3"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:54:07 -0800
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:22:15 -0000

I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed patent-encumbered
standard for TLS authorisation. To do so would fly in the face of the IETF's
fundamental commitment to openness. It would weaken not just the standard
itself, but the IETF's authority in this sphere.

 At a time when there is increasing awareness of the importance of
supporting truly open standards that can be implemented by anybody without
recourse to licensing, it would be a truly retrograde step to allow this
patent-encumbered standard to be approved.

 I urge the IETF to send a strong signal in support of open standards by
rejecting the proposal.

Yours faithfully

Glyn Moody PhD