On Mar 6, 2023, at 08:53, Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > The intended status is a > factor in the development of those license terms.
I find it more the other way around. Those lPR claims can be a factor in whether to make the intended status standard or experimental, or even whether to abandon the draft. Luckily in this case I feel fairly sure there is prior art, such as freeswan’s opportunistic encryption based on probing. >> Does the fact that we will not request publication until there are 2 or more >> interoperable implementations affect your thought process? > > It does, and yes, descriptive text would help. I am still confused how your IPR license conditions would depend on this. Paul _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
