Re: Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy

"Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> Fri, 20 July 2012 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F1221F858E; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bok80T1bdDRa; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1740121F8555; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ros-dhcp192-1-51-20.bbn.com ([192.1.51.20]:50094) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1SsGFu-000E81-5l; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:40:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <50097FAE.9060805@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:40:39 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FEE0CA44-A470-434A-9F25-88089411D0A6@bbn.com>
References: <20120720130733.14364.19024.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A29A24B6-4A07-46CC-902B-8A181F0541A3@kumari.net> <9B2F2766-DB92-4B7B-88DC-1B90FF6707B7@bbn.com> <CAPv4CP-zy1uUqXfXqNH9R1C-NTe+11pxgJ5ceZaR1=oU2E1T=A@mail.gmail.com> <A4AF7C0C-B8FB-47CB-BF36-78F2686FA5E1@harvard.edu> <1657B5B7-4680-4E32-991F-10BC70A84347@bbn.com> <50097FAE.9060805@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, iab@iab.org, ietf@ietf.org, iaoc@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:39:56 -0000

On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 7/20/2012 7:25 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>> We have the technology.  Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS download) would provide adequate authentication that it came from the IETF.  And it doesn't seem like we would have a problem providing authenticated documents to the world.
> 
> 
> Do you know that these are acceptable to most/all courts?
> 
> d/


IANAL, so no.  But what else are we going to provide that's better?

--Richard