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

Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
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 A4E0B21F85AA; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 xlO4YsiFs-GV; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8DFB21F85A4; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so364971vws.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.209.133 with SMTP id gg5mr2253800vcb.150.1311179529323; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (pool-173-79-132-155.washdc.fios.verizon.net [173.79.132.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bp11sm118615vcb.0.2011.07.20.09.32.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:32:04 -0400
From: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
To: todd glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CA4C777C.73BA%carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
Thread-Topic: [ltans] WG Action: Conclusion of Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (ltans)
In-Reply-To: <4E26FDEA.1050706@earthlink.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
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 16:32:10 -0000

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.  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.

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.
>