Hi, Wesley, Wesley Leggette wrote: > > Joe, > > Thank you ;) > > I should start by saying that at this point we have a fully implemented and > working product, so our overall goal is to sufficiently describe it to allow > third-party implementations.
It's useful to explain whether these are licensed parties, and the general terms of the license you expect. I.e., open, free to those who don't challenge your patents, or for-fee. > This being said, our current installation base allows for some flexibility > so it is my hope that by submitting a protocol specification for review we > can receive constructive criticism which will make it easier and more > practical for others to implement our protocol. It's also useful to consider the difference between asking the IETF to review documentation for a protocol you continue to own, vs. including modification and/or unification with other protocols. > My initial plan was to finish an initial draft of our transport and security > protocols. This email was sent to determine if and where an appropriate > working group exists which would be interested in reviewing such a thing. Lars suggested there might be more than one, which is not uncommon. > However, I see your point and so I suppose the best approach would be to > attempt, when I submit something, to explain clearly the design goals and > requirements that led us to go the route we did? Yes, that's always useful IMO. > When we are ready to submit something (it would be a submission which > documents what we have currently implemented) is there a working group that > would be appropriate, or should we just submit an I-D directly? It's always easiest to submit an individual I-D first, then see where to place it, AFAICT. Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
