Subject: Letter sent to FSF, needs a follow-up...

From: Alex Loret de Mola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:38:02 -0500

Dear All:

As promised last night, I have sent the FSF's Campaign E-Mail address
an E-Mail detailing the following:

"Dear Sirs:

Good morning!  During the ensuing discussion at the IETF concerning
TLS-authz, I found out about several avenues that may be more
productive to channel input than the general mailing list.  In sharing
these, hopefully you can help those who are interested in this subject
and who want to participate in the process to reach the right people
and make their voices heard in the right place.

* File an IPR disclosure if a specific instance of encumberance can be
found: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/, thus bringing
attention to the subject directly to the relevant task force and all
interested parties.  (Ideally, this should only be done once per IPR
discovered, as having "duplicate" disclosures would be
counterproductive to your cause)

* Review the latest disclosure from RedPhone
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1026/) and determine if the IPR
disclosed is unsatisfactory or too wide-reaching.  If it is, send your
queries and concerns directly to the assigned Working Group (which,
supposedly, should be
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/tls-charter.html , though admittedly
it is not appearing in their list of current internet drafts.  I will
look into this and see why such is the case)

* Users who do not do the above steps should join the IUCG
(http://iucg.org/) so that you may contribute to the discussion in the
context of internet users who are concerned by the proposal, and join
in the discussion about what is troubling and how it may be resolved.

Hopefully this helps!"

The only problem I ran into, which I must follow up on, is why the TLS
working group doesn't seem to have jurisdiction over the draft in
question (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07).  The draft in question
must've been considered an individual submission, according to RFC
2026.

I was told that I should direct those interested in discussion of the
subject to the appropriate working group for discussion with them
directly as opposed to in the general list, however that currently
seems to not be possible.  Is there any course of action I can advise
in my follow-up E-Mail, or can they still go to the TLS working group
with their concerns (if they feel the desire to do so)?

Sincerely,

Alex Loret de Mola
Lead Software Engineer, iScan Services