Re: RFC 6234 code

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 29 June 2013 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 F2D3521F9F2B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 R0S-k0VJa2ha for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BD421F9F1E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Ut2dt-000H4Y-Uo; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:25:13 -0400
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:25:08 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 6234 code
Message-ID: <438EE98A40654DA8CE169232@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB3A3E49-13C6-4CE3-87D5-8F86B37DFC57@hopcount.ca>
References: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D25097AA4@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <51CC67D0.8050600@isdg.net> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D25097B24@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <51CC94B2.2060507@isdg.net> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D25097CC1@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <51CD9987.8010401@att.com> <BEFC413A958E9B25913F2FE9@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <D3A3A63A-0CB1-4254-A087-655F9BDA6CEC@vpnc.org> <DB3A3E49-13C6-4CE3-87D5-8F86B37DFC57@hopcount.ca>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "ietf@ietf.org list" <ietf@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: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 21:25:23 -0000

--On Friday, June 28, 2013 16:41 -0400 Joe Abley
<jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:

>> If you really think you see a legal difference in doing the
>> second, fine; I propose that you are just searching for
>> problems that do not exist.
> 
> Quite possibly they don't, and I'm not presuming to talk for
> John. But the vague thoughts that crossed my mine were the
> issues that allowed Phil Zimmerman to publish PGP source code
> in book form and avoid conviction for munitions export without
> a licence.

That was one of the examples I had in mind, along with a few
others.  

However, given Paul's extensive legal experience and knowledge
of the details and applicability of export regulations and
associated case law, I apologize for wasting the time of people
on the list by raising this obviously spurious issue.  I am
delighted that, on the basis of that knowledge and experience,
Paul was willing to step in on this issue and assure us that
there is nothing to worry about.

   john