Re: [Patient] the IETF participant choice

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Hello Tony,

This list is to be used for discussions of possible work in the IETF.
Right now, the people on this list are interested in discussing use
cases, requirements, and current obstacles to determine a fruitful
forward direction.  These messages are a distraction towards those
goals and I'd like to see the conversation restarted in a new thread
when participants are ready, which may require some time and analysis
from the outcomes and discussions that have taken place so far.

Messages off track of the goals of this list will be moderated if
needed to assist with the productivity of this effort..

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> Whatever ETSI does will be fully compliant with IPR law.  I am also a lawyer
> and well aware of the IETF's assertions and complaints over the years.  The
> irony here is that TLS is actually an ITU-ISO standard.  Perhaps we can all
> just collaborate here on urgently needed specifications rather than making
> threats.

The IETF currently holds copyright and change control on the TLS protocol.

>
> --tony
>
> ps. In the early 90s, as ISOC Executive Director, I also helped set up the
> IETF's own rather unique IPR arrangements because of its lack of legal
> existence, and effected the purchase of considerable liability insurance for
> IETF decision makers.  Presumably that still exists. :-)

IPR has been updated considerably in the past 25 years and I suggest
you consult the current revisions to better understand IETF policies.
BCP78 and BCP79 would be a good start.

Best regards,
Kathleen

>
>
> On 20-Mar-18 6:00 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-3-19, at 20:01, Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> ETSI TC CYBER spent more than a year studying the "visibility" ecosystem,
> the requirements, venues, and technologies across a swath of industries
> worldwide - including what was occurring in academic research and published
> patents.  It published what is still the most comprehensive technical report
> on the subject.  And, it has moved ahead with four visibility technical
> specifications, a workshop, and a hackathon.  (Frankly, controls for levels
> of "observability" and "granularity" seem like better choices for
> capabilities being sought.
>
> The proposed ETSI TC CYBER technical specifications address both network
> based and data center based requirements - both in-band and out-of- band -
> with techniques that are arguably best of breed and drawn from existing R&D.
> To the extent there are omissions or failings, the ETSI processes are
> entirely open and the work will evolve and institute corrections.
>
> if ETSI TC CYBER is seriously embarking on a path that modifies
> IETF-originated standards without the IETF's explicit prior agreement, they
> are setting themselves up for a very visible and politically embarrassing
> failure.
>
> We had the same type of conflict with the ITU-T serval times in the past.
> ETSI TC CYBER might want to check how well that went for the ITU-T.
>
> Lars
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PATIENT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/patient
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PATIENT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/patient
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen