Re: [ltans] WG Action: Conclusion of Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (ltans)

todd glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net> Wed, 20 July 2011 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <tglassey@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: ltans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF6121F84AC; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.329
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.730, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wn-Vc7DcgUHV; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F331B21F84AE; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=MxoTkX3R9jHhwgVRTM4W2GKBqHe3MNvJRXurBTB95+6ZDJwElkm/p45naE1KCdon; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [207.111.209.5] (helo=[192.168.1.100]) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <tglassey@earthlink.net>) id 1Qjc2c-0001LY-CU; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:02:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4E272671.4070105@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:03:13 -0700
From: todd glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
References: <CA4C777C.73BA%carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA4C777C.73BA%carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec797cc8c18208eee8e92d807f146b1dc492350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 207.111.209.5
Cc: chair@IETF.org, ltans@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ltans] WG Action: Conclusion of Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (ltans)
X-BeenThere: ltans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: LTANS Working Group <ltans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltans>, <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltans>
List-Post: <mailto:ltans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans>, <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:03:34 -0000

On 7/20/2011 9:32 AM, Carl Wallace wrote:
> The good news is that none of the 5 completed specs address notary-related
> concepts.  Each spec addresses fairly narrow concepts consistent with the
> backgrounds of the volunteers contributing the work.
Yes as a solution which is represented through the name and charter of 
the WG to have implications or use as a notarial resource... i.e. that 
they are formally a part of a Notarial Solution which they are not. If 
there is no assertion to constrain Notarial splendor in this code or its 
process uses, then the N word needs to be washed from everything- 
including anything that would through search engines allow an idiot not 
trained in the art to come to the belief that this code cannot be used 
in its current form for notarial anything...
>   While it may be
> unfortunate that the term notary appears in the working group name, the
> notary concept was from the inception of the working group considered to
> be a topic area that would not necessarily result in new standards.

The problem comes this creates comes not from the IETF actions but from 
those which are from relying parties. The title representing that this 
WG was chartered and produced work which is constrained under that magic 
N word is still binding. The issue is the use of a term of art which has 
legal implications and the intentional vagueness so that people will 
interpret or subliminally equate this with Notarial Apostilles which it 
simple isn't.

I think the effort and practice was excellent for a very specific set of 
very limited uses, and that the protocol and its defined practice 
components like most other IETF works lacks any use-specification for 
the intent of the developers in how this protocol should be used 
specifically. This is a very common game played in the IETF by techies 
who want to build the biggest dick they possibly can swing in public and 
bluntly its pretty offensive.



Look, you may think this is a nothing issue, but as a contributor you 
are contained by it and the use of it in administering this WG...

Its all about transparency and its time the IETF got a serious dose of 
sunshine...

Todd

> On 7/20/11 12:10 PM, "todd glassey"<tglassey@earthlink.net>;  wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2011 8:12 AM, Carl Wallace wrote:
>>> On 7/20/11 10:49 AM, "todd glassey"<tglassey@earthlink.net>;   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/19/2011 6:28 PM, IESG Secretary wrote:
>>>>> The Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (ltans) working group in the
>>>>> Security Area has concluded. The IESG contact persons are Sean Turner
>>>>> and Stephen Farrell.
>>>> So there is actually no Notary's process in any of this code.
>>> Correct.  In accord with the charter, a requirements gathering effort
>>> for
>>> potential notary-related work was conducted.
>>  From who - the engineers working on the protocol??? - do any of them
>> have legal backgrounds which would be competent to advise here? Will any
>> of their sponsors take legal culpability for those parties actions?  You
>> see my point?
>>
>> Its time for accountability here in the IETF to be real.
>>> The results were reviewed by
>>> the working group and work on notary-related standards was suspended at
>>> IETF 65 due to lack of interest in pursuing the topic.
>> Which means that the terms and any reference to the concept of "Legal
>> Document Control" per the apostles practices have to be cleansed from
>> these works.  i.e. someone with a redline needs to cut out all
>> references to Notary anything. That said, it means simply that this WG
>> isnt done and that until those issues are completed, that NONE of the
>> works can be finalized... or that they can and must all be pulled -
>> since the IETF itself becomes a party to the fraud of misrepresenting
>> its IP's as 'replacing legal roles' in the Human population.
>>
>> The IETF has never made a legal statement about any of its protocols
>> before LTANS, but I think that by using the Legal Term "NOTARY" in both
>> the WG's title and its operating practices, it opens the IETF to this
>> review.
>>
>> t.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Todd S. Glassey
>> This is from my personal email account and any materials from this
>> account come with personal disclaimers.
>>
>> Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings.
>>
>
>


-- 
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come with personal disclaimers.

Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings.