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

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Wed, 02 December 2009 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DAB43A682D for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:45:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p6rn-KXGgkbQ for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:45:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2F03A67AE for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1NFg9m-000O5z-W5; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:45:35 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD44603C; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:45:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19Wup32S0epEDVlh6/g5Uuo5+CBnb7zi74=
Message-ID: <4B15E2DD.3000701@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:45:33 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <200907232134.n6NLYGOq008369@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <300574.25594.qm@web45507.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4AB3A5F6.1030202@earthlink.net> <E1NFK3N-0008OA-T7@fencepost.gnu.org> <4B15D9D2.3010107@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4B15D9D2.3010107@stpeter.im>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=1E36DBF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Todd Glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>, ietf-honest@lists.iadl.org, rms@gnu.org, tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Ietf-honest] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:45:47 -0000

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 11/30/09 9:09 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>     Dan - the IPR notice is a statement of the ownership of the IP
>>
>> It is a bad practice to use the term "intellectual property" to talk
>> about anything, because that term is harmfully broad.  No matter which
>> law is the real topic, confusing it with other laws is not good.
>>
>> These issues concern patents and only patents.  (Copyrights and
>> trademarks could not raise issues like these.)  So we can avoid
>> spreading confusion by speaking of "notices about patents" and
>> "ownership of the patents", and avoiding the term "IP".
>>
>> It's easy to do, so how about it?
> 
> Agreed, the term "intellectual property" is only bound to lead to
> muddled thinking.

Seems to me that, in the context of asking parties to self-declare their
"IP", it's better to error on the side of overly broad terminology. You
want to know what they think they've got more than what they actually
have. Someone somewhere is thinking he has a trademark on the first four
octets of a protocol message and it would be good to get that out on the
table.

But for discussions of any specific situation, or of the topic in
general, you'd normally want to use the most precise term (unless you're
attempting to hide the weaknesses of your argument underneath the muddle).

- Marsh