Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Wed, 11 February 2009 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D193A69B5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:47:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4hV5Yz5Z0xuZ for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:47:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951823A6906 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:47:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.30.1.52] (unverified [83.218.162.151]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 186515-1743317 for multiple; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:47:26 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.15.0.081119
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:47:21 +0100
Subject: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C5B8A389.3033A%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt
Thread-Index: AcmMV6SyR31bxmbIHk2k0SA8JGCvHQ==
In-Reply-To: <a1820cc70902110621j73fd6200q25b843b0df497e5@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: 83.218.162.151
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:47:24 -0000

Hi,

On 2/11/09 3:21 PM, "Bob Jolliffe" <bobjolliffe@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]
> I think (I hope) their is a general consensus that IETF
> standards should be freely implementable and usable for the manner in
> which they are intended.
> 

The phrase "freely implementable and usable" may be the key
misconception/misunderstanding by the FSF people.  As several hundred IPR
disclosures with RAND terms against issued standards track RFCs show, the
consensus (at least in those cases) in the IETF has been, and still is, that
IETF RFCs do not necessarily have to be royalty-free or unencumbered.
Personally, I view those as "free" just as well; my definition of freedom is
somewhat different than the FSF's definition.

I fully understand that this is not aligned with FSF's position on standards
in general.  The way to address this misalignment is to work in the IETF
towards an FSF-compatible patent regime, and not rant about one specific
draft that somehow got on the FSF's campaign radar.  The best way, IMO, to
work towards such a regime, would be that FSF activists, instead of wasting
their time on mailbombing, invent great new concepts, protocols, and write
them down in the form of Internet drafts, and make them freely available in
the IETF and elsewhere.


Regards,
Stephan