Re: [TLS] Apple. Re: Web Identity WG Composition

["Harry Halpin" <[e-mail]>]

> Hi Ted,
>
>>> It is also *forbidden* to speak openly about requirements if you work
>>> for a vendor like Apple or Microsoft.


Anders,

First, why are you emailing off-list from [e-mail] and now
adding [e-mail]? This has little to nothing to do with the TLS effort.

It appears you have limited experience with the W3C given your previous
misinformation about <keygen> and now this email. Note that one reason why
WGs can do work is companies agree to the W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy
as regards the charter of the W3C. Of course member companies may not
agree if it is not in their business interest. However, for the benefit of
the Web and their business, many companies operate in good faith,
including Apple. I agree with Edward and would prefer if you did not
suggest otherwise. I'm happy to point you to relevant documentation about
the W3C, but let's do that off-list. If you wish to continue with a
"personal" project, please do that off-list as well, and best of luck.

And do not add any new lists to this thread or continue this thread on
list, as basic operating knowledge of the W3C and IETF is assumed on these
lists. I'm happy to respond more off-list.


    cheers,
       harry
>
> I have in past life worked for RSA Security and a thing that made
> me upset was that every suggestion you did had to go through
> the legal department due to potential IPR issues.
>
> Of course we can standardize web identity solutions but not based
> on innovation.  That's why this activity is *doomed*.
>
> It well-known that US companies are abusing the patent system, and
> Apple is by no means an exception.
>
> In fact, the only reaction I have got on my "heroic"
>
> http://webpki.org/papers/keygen2/sks-keygen2-exec-level-presentation.pdf
>
> effort are from various IPR-folks who claim that I'm infringing on
> their patents (which I have never read).
>
> However, I won't bring up this issue again.  I continue on the stuff
> mentioned above which is more interesting than working with people
> who hide their technology like Google with their wallet.
>
> My hope is that the next.next generation of wallets will be powered by
> SKS/KeyGen2.
>
> There are no standardization effort for wallets :-) :-)
>
> There won't be one either because it is MUCH too political,
> and technical to be catered by an SDO!
>
> Regards,
> Anders
>
> On 2011-10-25 20:03, Edward O'Connor wrote:
>> -public-identity, +www-archive
>>
>> Hi Anders,
>>
>> You wrote:
>>> It is also *forbidden* to speak openly about requirements if you work
>>> for a vendor like Apple or Microsoft.
>>
>> I don't know why you think this, but I can assure you it is not the
>> case. As far as Apple goes, we in general refrain from discussing our
>> future products and release plans, but we actively participate in good
>> faith in many Web standards efforts. I'd prefer it if you didn't suggest
>> otherwise.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ted
>>
>
>