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

todd glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net> Wed, 20 July 2011 16:10 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 D23E821F8AE9; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.41
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.811, 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 g3D8A4gVVamK; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED82421F8AEF; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=sjC+amCRv18k5FcGQoExYxrWQdK/S1vVG5j9LLpcr4jLN3W3q/LAYbWgpdgEbXZI; 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-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <tglassey@earthlink.net>) id 1QjZLG-0002qR-Q1; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:09:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4E26FDEA.1050706@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:10:18 -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: <CA4C657D.7387%carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA4C657D.7387%carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79d791b5eadc187472f3a932c83dd41435350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
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 16:10:05 -0000

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.