Re: [TLS] [Ietf-honest] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying

Dean Anderson <> Fri, 18 September 2009 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B8C3A68A9 for <>; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.565
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cbatCqo0RL8o for <>; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC463A68BE for <>; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n8ILSRnO023415 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:28:28 -0400
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:28:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson <>
To: Todd Glassey <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Ietf-honest] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:27:36 -0000

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Todd Glassey wrote:

> >>> the IETF can archive the IPR disclosures in their original form.
> >>>       
> >> Yes but that's the flaw in the IETF's system.
> >>     
> >
> > I think not. 
> Then we should agree to disagree.


> > The IETF system cannot be expected to exclude URLs in a
> > block of text because Urls to _fixed_ longer documents are probably
> > good. Most such forms might run out of space and require additional
> > longer documents. 
> Why not - there should be an option to a Technologies Licensing Page on 
> a IPR filers website. That's cool and goes a way farther to insure that 
> parties that file IPR notices are contactable.

There is already contact information in Section VII.

> >  However, the IETF could and _should_ administratively
> > require by rules that the documents so referenced in the URLs be in
> > fixed form and that the submitter cannot change them arbitrarilly.
> >   
> No again - the grant statement's or lack thereof are contained in 
> documents outside of the IETF and that's the way it is. The IETF cannot 
> take property and relicense it under terms it doesnt own so it cannot 
> license use of property for which external IPR is claimed or for which 
> IPR denying IETF use is filed.

No one is asking the IETF to "take" property. We are asking the IETF to 
enforce the rule that there should be a definite and stable license 
terms before approving a standand.

> The IETF system needs to embrace technology and stop interfering with
> people who want to do things that the people in the IETF dont seem to
> think 'are good for their Internet' and that is the issue.  The IETF
> needs to not be the keeper of what the Internet is or what's done on
> it.  The IETF is a technology forum for creating standards for how
> networking over inter-networked systems is like. Its not a political
> platform. Its not a weapon to be wielded its a Standards Practice and
> Platform for that, and it needs to both embrace that limitation and
> become accountable for damages that actions of parties inside the IETF
> create.

I agree that the above are problems, but I think the causes of these
problems are found in the "who is running the IETF", and their failure
to follow the IETF's own rules.  Democracy works except when people
prevent it from working by breaking the rules. And of course, only those
in control can actually break the rules in any serious way that affects
the operation of the organization.  But they have a duty, and
ultimately, they are the ones held accountable to their duty to comply
with the rules and the law.

> Its all about transparency.

I agree, it is all about transparency.  But transparency would seem to
require stable and definite licencing terms before we approve patented
standards proposals.


Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?         faster, more reliable, better service
617 256 5494