Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So Richard - what are you going to do when you get sued for building a
product that has NO possible use but to violate filed and reliable
Intellectual Property Rights - This is not just my claim - the original RFC
now has a section that talks to its issues with commercially supplied
patents regarding receipt generation and the use of time data therein. Only
it doesn't bother to include the XML ones or those filed and granted since
the Haber ones it does reference became moot.

This is the real issue with RFC3161 and its becoming a standard. It
essentially creates the first COMMERCIAL standard inside the IETF  since
there can be no use model that is not in violation of any number of patents.
It also will IMHO constrain PKIX for what it is  - an old boys club
masquerading as a standards group.

I see the ascension of 3161 as one of the saddest things that can happen
since it will permanently impugn PKIX and in fact may be the key item
necessary to force the deconstruction of the IETF as we know it today.


Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ricardo Barroso" <ricardo.barroso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Gianluca Ramunno" <ramunno@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Stephen Kent" <kent@xxxxxxx>; <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>;
<housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol


>
> Hi!
>
> I agree with Stephen when he says:
>
>     «I think we need to define one transport protocol as a default, and
> make it a MUST implement,
>     so that all clients and all servers are capable of communicating, at
> least in principle.»
>
> and with Gianluca when is said that protocol should be HTTP:
>
>     «Without a well-defined and mandatory transport protocol, it's quite
>     difficult to formally define the set of the interoperability tests
> that are
>     needed to push forward the TSP on the standard track according to
> RFC2026.
>
>     Regarding the question "which protocol should be mandatory?", in my
> personal
>     opinion a good choice may be HTTP.».
>
> Cheers,
> Ricardo Barroso
> (MULTICERT)
>