[TLS] Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

I cannot post to the IETF list (because of prior misconduct by Housley
and others regarding my previous complaints of failures to file IPR
disclosures on other drafts). I would appreciate it if someone would
repost this to the ietf list.

It was brought to my attention that the document wasn't ever a TLS
working group document. Therefore, my response quoted in below, is
incorrect:

> The name of the draft "draft-housley-tls-authz-extns" contains the
> name of the working group, a fact that indicates it is a working group
> document.

The above is incorrect and I stand corrected.

However, it remains true that:

> After the fraud by Housley was discovered, and the approval was
> removed, the TLS Working Group was asked, but no longer supported the
> protocol because of the patent.  See Rescorla's message, quoted above.

See Sam Hartman's datatracker entry.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-housley-tls-authz-extns/comment/68197/?
[This whole comment is a very good read, and I'm tempted to include more
of it here.]

Polk was arguing that it is somehow in the best interests of the
community, and that the community somehow hasn't expressed non-support
for the publication. Polk's argument is still wrong:

Hartman writes in the above datatracker entry:

  Comments were provided, but there was not a consensus in favor of
  publication on the standards track either there or on the ietf list.

  I think there is a rough consensus against publication on the
  standards track.  However it is quite clear that there is not a rough
  consensus in favor of publication on the standards track which would
  be required to do so.

So, Polk's assertions are still incorrect.

The non-free, patented, commercial protocol remains a hard and
improvident bargain for the IETF community, contrary to the interests of
the IETF community. It seems the only interests that this document
advances are those of Brown and Housley and their interested cronies,
including Polk.

Hartman also states another reason this unseemly effort will fail:

  Publishing this document via the rfc editor independent submissions
  track is basically not an option because the IANA assignments require
  IETF consensus or standards action.

As Brian Carpenter pointed out, an Experimental RFC isn't a standards
action.  The reason to use an Informational or Experimental RFC is that
a consensus isn't required to approve the RFC. The category was chosen
in this case because there hasn't been a consensus to approve the
document.  Instead, there is a consensus against this document.  So
there is no justification for the IANA assignments on the non-free,
patented, proprietary protocol.

Indeed, IANA should remove mention of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns from
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values since the
document doesn't have an IETF Consensus.  IANA should have done this
months ago.

		--Dean

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:

> > >> I believe that publication is in the best interest of the
> > >> community, *in spite* of the document's history.  I was hoping that
> > >> you could help identify the best way to determine if the community
> > >> agreed with me...
> > >
> > > I rather think the community disagrees with you, and has expressed
> > > that lack of interest through non-support in the TLS working group,
> > > and non-support on the IETF main list, and in the comments of Sam
> > > Hartman withdrawing his support as sponsoring A.D.
> >
> > The TLS working group declined to take this work on.  That is
> > different from not supporting publication.
>
> The above isn't a true statement.  The name of the draft
> "draft-housley-tls-authz-extns" contains the name of the working group,
> a fact that indicates it is a working group document.  After the fraud
> by Housley was discovered, and the approval was removed, the TLS Working
> Group was asked, but no longer supported the protocol because of the
> patent.  See Rescorla's message, quoted above.

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls