Subject: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

From: Richard Wilbur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:42:29 -0600

To those considering the TLS-authz proposal:

The patent shenanigans of RedPhone Security have reduced implementation
status from "open" to "taxed at the whim of RedPhone Security."  This
should be enough to disqualify the proposal from further consideration
unless, and until, RedPhone Security grants a royalty-free license for
all users.

The imprimatur of the IETF should remain reserved for open standards.

Thank you for considering my position.

Sincerely,

Richard Wilbur
Senior Software Developer
Server Software

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:22:14 -0800

Mr. Wilbur,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Wilbur" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

> The imprimatur of the IETF should remain reserved for open standards.

Garbage. The IETF's Standards ***MUST*** by the definition's of the IETF per 
RFC2026 and other documents,  be available to any and all period. That means 
that ALL must be able to use the IETF to standardize an IP based system or 
protocol without concern whether they are OpenSource or licensed under some 
Creative Common's type license, or are available for Commercial Operator's 
only.

The IETF's value is its vetting process and refusing to allow people to use 
that is both civil and criminal IMHO.

> Thank you for considering my position.

You are welcome, and wrong IMHO. There is a direct liabiliy which becomes 
one which those who participate in voting to 'prevent any particular 
initiative' to advance are liable for and that is tortuous interference with 
another's economic betterment. Bluntly these liabilities put the IETF into a 
mode where I describe it as "running hog-wild into a situation where not 
only the WG's member's would be liable but their Sponsor's as well, and the 
IETF Management too" and what they are liable  for is participating in 
'freezing out' various initiatives. I refer to this as fostering this 
"nightmare of lies" when the IETF represents itself as open and fair.

For instance, currently per the BCP78 Submission Rules, there is the NO DUTY 
TO PUBLISH submissions in the submission of those IP's to the IETF, but if 
that is true, then the IETF is not  open or fair, since it can vote without 
any defintion of how or why, to not publish something based on no real set 
of controls today, making that vote totally arbitrary. Since that Vote would 
happen after the IP has been transfered to the IETF, this becomes easily 
analyzed and claims filed with Law Enformcement. The submission of IP for 
standardization prevents that same IP from being filed with ANY OTHER SDO, 
meaning that the IETF can and does prevent those IP's from being considered 
if it refuses to publish them. .

In fact, since there is no control on what or who or how a decission is made 
not to publish submission's, and since there is no method of determining the 
value of any IP 'Gift' then the IETF is through its processes intentionally 
preventing things from both being properly valued or advanced through the 
IETF's processes.

That means I think that in fact there is a direct responsibility to publish 
ANYTHING sent to the IETF to prevent the IETF from directly being liable 
since it also demands that any IP sent to it become's it's property, meaning 
that the IETF is 100% liable for acts which it prevents from being 
published.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:27:02 -0800

The FSF copntinues to attempt to re-open this decision.
 
I don't see any infomation content to these posts, beyond the already known facts that 1) RMS has people read his Web site and 2) perpetrates a one-way form of communication - we have to listen to him but he has no intention of listening to us.
 
I suggest that we consider a mechanism for sending any message that is CC'd to [email-masked] straight to the bit bucket. The fact that it is multiple individuals responding to an obsolete campaign page rather than one noise maker does not make it any less disruptive.

________________________________

From: Richard Wilbur [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mon 22/10/2007 6:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

Sincerely,

Richard Wilbur

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:19:01 -0500

>>>>> "Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[email-masked]> writes:

    Hallam-Baker,> The FSF copntinues to attempt to re-open this
    Hallam-Baker,> decision.

Phil, I think the important point here can be made in a much more
neutral manner.  The last call period is closed.  Additional
discussion until Tim makes a decision is not productive and has for
this document risen to a point where it is disruptive.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:43:26 +1300

> this document risen to a point where it is disruptive.

And to be fair, the message delivered today has an origin date of
"Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:42:29 -0600". It has apparently been stuck in
a queue for almost 3 months.

   Brian

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:53:57 -0500

On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:27:02AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> I don't see any infomation content to these posts, beyond the
> already known facts that 1) RMS has people read his Web site and 2)
> perpetrates a one-way form of communication - we have to listen to
> him but he has no intention of listening to us.
>  
> I suggest that we consider a mechanism for sending any message that
> is CC'd to [email-masked] straight to the bit bucket. The fact
> that it is multiple individuals responding to an obsolete campaign
> page rather than one noise maker does not make it any less
> disruptive.

Actually, to be fair, I don't think this can be laid at the feet of
the FSF.  Todd Glassey replied to a message approximately 3 months old
with some legal reasoning that at best seems highly contorted, and at
worst total nonsense.  (For example, requirements for a claim of
tortious interference of prospective economic advantage, or TIPA, are
quite specific, and almost certainly don't apply; people who are
interested are invited to google the term for themselves, and/or pay a
lawyer for a legal opinion).

Whether they are or are not, Todd's legal thoughts make sense,
*discussion* of these sorts of legal matters are outside the bounds of
the IETF.  Applying law to facts requires a law degree to in order to
give legal advice and form a formal legal opinion, and most of the
people on the IETF mailing list are not lawyers.

So while that message was not appropriate for the IETF list, it's not
fair to blame this on [email-masked].

						- Ted

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:23:45 -0800

Theodore Tso wrote:
> worst total nonsense.  

All of which raises the deeper question of why serious people are consuming 
the ietf mailing list posting responses to it.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:26:43 -0800

My mail client only shows the arrival date as today.
 
Admittedly I am on a somewhat limited Webmail version after my laptop hit a halt and catch fire instruction. But the message has certainly been reinjected somehow.

From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mon 14/01/2008 7:23 PM
To: Theodore Tso
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

d/

--

   Dave Crocker

---

From: John Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:34:42 -0500

> The FSF copntinues to attempt to re-open this decision.

This is not accurate. We explicitly included the closing comment date in
all of our postings and have made no effort to encourage people to
ignore that deadline or re-open the decision. Individuals who ignore the
deadline are doing so on their own.

> I don't see any infomation content to these posts, beyond the already
> known facts that 1) RMS has people read his Web site and 2)
> perpetrates a one-way form of communication - we have to listen to him
> but he has no intention of listening to us.
>  

We very much value the work and expertise of the IETF. It's true that
comment periods are unfortunately often a one-way street -- but I don't
agree with attributing that qualitSG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2008-01-28. Exceptionally,=20
comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please=20
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-12.
txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=3Dview_id&dTag=

=3D9555&rfc_flag=3D0

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: John Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:34:42 -0500

We very much value the work and expertise of the IETF. It's true that
comment periods are unfortunately often a one-way street -- but I don't
agree with attributing that quality to RMS or the FSF. We in fact have
been reading many of the responses to the comments and are interested in
the IETF's rationale in light of the arguments we advanced.

> I suggest that we consider a mechanism for sending any message that is
> CC'd to [email-masked] straight to the bit bucket. The fact that it
> is multiple individuals responding to an obsolete campaign page rather
> than one noise maker does not make it any less disruptive.

We can't really take responsibility for people who choose to ignore the
deadline. But I'll have the page unpublished from our site, which should
stop additional unwelcome comments from being sent. Our intent was to
encourage people to participate in the process, not to circumvent or
disrespect it.

-- 
John Sullivan
Manager of Operations
GPG Key: AE8600B6

y to RMS or the FSF. We in fact have
been reading many of the responses to the comments and are interested in
the IETF's rationale in light of the arguments we advanced.

> I suggest that we consider a mechanism for sending any message that is
> CC'd to [email-masked] straight to the bit bucket. The fact that it
> is multiple individuals responding to an obsolete campaign page rather
> than one noise maker does not make it any less disruptive.

We can't really take responsibility for people who choose to ignore the
deadline. But I'll have the page unpublished from our site, which should
stop additional unwelcome comments from being sent. Our intent was to
encourage people to participate in the process, not to circumvent or
disrespect it.

-- 
John Sullivan
Manager of Operations
GPG Key: AE8600B6

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:12:15 -0800

No Ted - When the Law sets standards for how media is managed then that is 
specific to the acceptance and use of the IETF's work products, so you are 
dead wrong. If the Court's set standards for authenticating email for 
instance which were not a part of RFC's then other standards would have to 
be drafted which may or may not link to IETF Standards.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theodore Tso" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Richard Wilbur" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

> the FSF.  Todd Glassey replied to a messageFrom [email-masked] Tue Jan 15 13:17:35 2008
From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Theodore Tso" <[email-masked]>,
	"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:12:15 -0800
Cc: Richard Wilbur <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

No Ted - When the Law sets standards for how media is managed then that is 
specific to the acceptance and use of the IETF's work products, so you are 
dead wrong. If the Court's set standards for authenticating email for 
instance which were not a part of RFC's then other standards would have to 
be drafted which may or may not link to IETF Standards.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theodore Tso" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Richard Wilbur" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

> people on the IETF mailing list are not lawyers.

Ted - when technology claims that the law that constrains it - does not 
apply since the technologis't working in those areas are ignorant of the law 
that they are constrained by only documents the incompetence of the 
standards process and the parties inside of it.

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:05:38 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Theodore Tso" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

>> with some legal reasoning that at best seems highly contorted, and at

I love technololgists who claim their view of Law is the right on. Are you 
suggesting we should resolve this in a court of law Dave?

>
>
> All of which raises the deeper question of why serious people are 
> consuming the ietf mailing list posting responses to it.

Or perhaps a better quesiton is what the actual loading it created since you 
labeled it as "consuming" the list's available bandwidth.

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:51:49 -0800

Well I found it somewhat interesting that despite the fact that I was the only person to co-author a submission to the IPR working group with an actual lawyer I still received comments of the 'amateur lawyering kind' from folk who were not lawyers and whose legalistic opinions had been flat contradicted by those who are.
 
So without more ado:
 
First Law of Internet Lawyering: Anyone who accuses another of being insufficiently qualified to state a legal opinion will in the same thread state a legal opinion that they are not qualified to make.
 
Second Law of Internet Lawyering: Both opinions will be wrong
 
Third Law of Internet Lawyering: It won't matter.

From: TS Glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 15/01/2008 1:05 PM
To: [email-masked]; Theodore Tso
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:01:03 -0800

Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standardPhillip - 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip 
  To: TS Glassey ; [email-masked] ; Theodore Tso 
  Cc: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:51 AM
  Subject: Hallam-Baker's First Law of Internet Lawyering Was: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

 it is funny since Michael Baum used to refer to you as his IP law resource :-)

  So without more ado:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------