Re: The flower standard

Pars Mutaf <> Fri, 07 December 2012 06:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC16921F885A for <>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:09:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.984
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.468, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v61VOLUF99B2 for <>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7859921F8801 for <>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:09:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id fc26so142285vbb.31 for <>; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:09:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=r3vB0QOVBGZmGYwsVOY/68vlUnDLFrj7x1PiUeWWRHk=; b=IPBvSNe2c9RzdRxYzNvoJMrdmWPBM23VSN0tu2ieW9Fbm+a9D2a+lZ+Rtvw6VkBW3t g+om4QrrJVjOwtu+yzHPRPi+1otburKSGTNuV6DgxPB7E7vYkoSSm3nTXNrHU3oR+Ek0 JOGy64wy7CKvaLYlJhpZYsbzjJy0qJSP6KFldgeRLnLjc0g+b2UunEsIf2W9hRxEKnl3 YL0cDSZp9teUG/LX3ZWIUuzW3fcUYxVf+MEtESgqu+MyPcS5uOXb9TLaAjilmh2PNSIu WBd7qP4P3KPVczqzatq4IH8T6QJWXzN6Cnx/xNlmG5pD3fzAHsTDTEodU+artk2tT9nK 3TAA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id yw9mr3308419vec.10.1354860554485; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:09:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:09:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:09:14 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: The flower standard
From: Pars Mutaf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bacc07e11fee104d03d0e97"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 06:09:22 -0000

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Pars Mutaf <> wrote:

> Dear all,
> FYI, I designed the following standard myself. It completes IETF RFC 3161.
> Cheers,
> Pars Mutaf

More info about the design rational. I provide this information here
because someone may ask later why I did not ask the IETF's opinion.

The flower standard adds the following to RFC3161:

1. Freedom to put your idea anywhere you like. Currently, social networking
sites are the most reliable sites. Using social networking sites is our
idea. RFC 3161 suggests the use of a time-stamp agent. But social
networking sites already do this and they are more reliable and free of
charge and easy to use. Another solution we are working on is augmenting modern
poor man's copyright
<>with a publish
e-mail function. You can send your idea to yourself via
e-mail. The service provider time-stamps it. You can show others your
e-mail by publishing your e-mail. I.e. giving access to a particular

There are many possible solutions. Flower standard allows to use all of
them this doesn't excluded RFC3161.

2. The flower sign on a file indicates to the public that a document is
original and protected using this method. If I see a document and there is
no flower sign on it, I can pretend that it is mine or try to steal it. But
if there is a flower sign I will know that it is protected. This will stop
me. This is like the copyright sign. But the copyright sign has a different
meaning. It doesn't explain that the idea is time-stamped. In addition,
this concept is not about "copyright". It is about "proof of work". You can
copy my work if I permit but the idea is mine and I can prove it.


Pars Mutaf