Re: Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 20 July 2012 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 24FC021F8637; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 2dKRuH09QZAc; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3884921F862F; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.82.26] (64.125.189.90.t00817-23.above.net [64.125.189.90] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6KFuaBN013392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:56:37 -0700
Message-ID: <50097FAE.9060805@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:56:30 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy
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>
In-Reply-To: <1657B5B7-4680-4E32-991F-10BC70A84347@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 15:55:46 -0000

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/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net