Re: [TLS] [Ietf-honest] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying

[Richard Stallman <[e-mail]>]

    http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/notice.cgi?NoticeID=203

I will send mail to get a copy of that page.

    You've missed or ignored my point, which is not about actual law, but
    about facilitating communication:

Sure, but the actual laws are the context and subject matter for this
communication.

    The main purpose of having the disclosure discussion in an open
    standards effort is to prevent problems later. You want parties to share
    everything that they think could be relevant, but more importantly they
    have to not go away thinking that there was something that they weren't
    obligated to disclose.

Sure, but there is no need to raise the issue of laws that can't
possibly be relevant.  At the same time, why leave out laws that
aren't in the list that "intellectual property" supposedly refers to?

Using the term "intellectual property" introduces a harmful
misunderstanding into any communication.  It is worth some effort to
choose some other method to achieve the present goal.

We could say, "Please tell us about any private privilege you know of
which could restrict the distribution or use of systems on account of
implementing any part of this specification."  And then we could list
the known laws believed likely to do so.