Re: [Patient] the IETF participant choice

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 20 March 2018 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: patient@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: patient@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275AD12D892 for <patient@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k48EQMGCFEsz for <patient@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3521012E038 for <patient@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id y20-v6so1933548itc.5 for <patient@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=m6VjlQBFGdH/ie6ibWloFDsV45zGHRFWtgHzDLxqyZ4=; b=O3DVKpDFiDBmviPrk0FXq9Vh4ey6TBP6rLr8piqcClgwPzlA30wE99kv4dOrNXQ0po iLGG1jUz5EHrDcMGFjT4trt5OlPh9wzBbP1rioaEMSsaLdPqlQHgAvQiLC9WKxz6f31C PBBqHmQXpHmfF/H6lslNcroHlRZxRlj28cY6OKxmYj7LHrBBROvAd4HYmqMB3q0mpJDR B0CcxsW0x1xQZI/WDJxLovWPFM/KrdpwDGWv3LOA0eoXZrRZzVsP3JVB0ZCh/k8+tzXM DrPK6OywYBAhPPNAV7Fe+muaD6LgNjAhI8IlcWuYsJTIZvpfkVMFyfA4DSBVsvybWVM9 AJGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m6VjlQBFGdH/ie6ibWloFDsV45zGHRFWtgHzDLxqyZ4=; b=M7SnjrkzE+ZX1t9C/+AMmY74hVdZ9EFj3Weg+Gr9jaHrx8JE7sfYJPLt/MKHymeujV F7dNmCN4WjIxZdj72YoJ47SIc+IV5E10RCoMkCY4h7J/G/6Kql/DKtpl7R3Npl6c2WGT Z7o6lBApS7kwkBJVSYDwoYzPt31Be4QuTFq27OanoCeoVLkUs5za9ql4VrvN4SSqjb6n 4Etj9H9j/Iu47YOlUu+KHu27VKDUh9gSqrVL01hg/HyjwT38xQbvz4QtIHm9gSbo89sl bxnFQxA8mrgxQGijr8a1VzhGgYH9Um9iFZcUYHcMu87wt2kLQPhW0W95qafMUGILaaCn 6DUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FW6jn+v+hK0uAy/eTPhlKq8YX97OmCxdVeRE8gf+5vb4n0NZlz fca3BORk9g1xgRX/1GiPgNambS9jr23E/kf2yX0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELth5XOaid9YJK8mp76VR+M/cyjV+J3zqCr7pp3HDbE22O/O4R0A6gvc8MmPYdbTXgMNgeFm7QrlyHaPHrwJcWg=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:3c8a:: with SMTP id m132-v6mr2401510ita.132.1521545317594; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.192.156.137 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ebd8515e-8032-2711-ff72-7eb7540595f2@yaanatech.co.uk>
References: <MWHPR16MB14881688FE400E3277CA8A9393310@MWHPR16MB1488.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR16MB14889B7535153E5844649CA393370@MWHPR16MB1488.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR16MB14880A12D15AC58FDD5CEC8793370@MWHPR16MB1488.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR16MB1488D43F3B53BC7BBE9D836593370@MWHPR16MB1488.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR16MB1488853B0E4F7BB8E557288D93370@MWHPR16MB1488.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR16MB148845FB069D03625BC399B193370@MWHPR16MB1488.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR16MB1488848D7AC828EBB8DA90B093350@MWHPR16MB1488.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <DM5PR16MB148477E1FAA4C210A3B013F7930A0@DM5PR16MB1484.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1712141805020.15188@bofh.nohats.ca> <MWHPR16MB148859D8FC007D9B9D5005E6930A0@MWHPR16MB1488.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <988132f9-478d-2012-9ad2-353534f07db7@yaanatech.co.uk> <e89e816d-76da-c062-b3fc-ae2e73c176ae@yaanatech.co.uk> <EA01ED95-E326-4340-BE72-F7518A4A3C1A@netapp.com> <ebd8515e-8032-2711-ff72-7eb7540595f2@yaanatech.co.uk>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 07:27:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH5z_S6Vkybm-uX-J+7yKsAyEgnFypfN3iCs7+ytEx_kjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tony@yaanatech.co.uk
Cc: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, "patient@ietf.org" <patient@ietf.org>, Brian Witten <brian_witten@symantec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/patient/Jt92Md8LSi6AaBRn2s2eLwXf9k4>
Subject: Re: [Patient] the IETF participant choice
X-BeenThere: patient@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protecting against Attacks Tunneling In Encrypted Network Tunnels <patient.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/patient>, <mailto:patient-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/patient/>
List-Post: <mailto:patient@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:patient-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/patient>, <mailto:patient-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:28:42 -0000

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 <tony@yaanatech.co.uk>; 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 <tony@yaanatech.co.uk>; 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
> PATIENT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/patient
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PATIENT mailing list
> PATIENT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/patient
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen