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

[Dean Anderson <[e-mail]>]

The IETF has previously demonstrated itself to be unreliable and 
untrustworthy with respect to preserving IPR disclosures.  We still do 
not have the original IPR 765 disclosure.

>From http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/ 

=========================
February 2009 More TLS-AUTHZ Misconduct: IESG removes Redphone IPR 
Disclosure  Despite giving assurances that IPR documents would never be 
removed, and despite a corporate policy of not deleting history, and 
despite a duty not to destroy evidence, the IESG reneged on all of that 
to remove IPR 765, the first disclosure by Redphone that set off the 
TLS-AUTHZ controversy. This disclosure has been cited by critics of 
Redphone, Russ Housley, Tim Polk and the IESG as evidence of bad faith.
=========================

And some people want to destroy the participation records (bluesheets)
in order to deceive other people about their participation and thereby
deceive and defraud other IETF participants and their counsel in future
litigation about their participation and duty to disclose patents (e.g.
Qualcomm v. Broadcom).  See this discussion:

http://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=47819&tid=1249657487
http://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=47828&tid=1249657487

These people (some are Qualcomm employees)  are well aware of a duty to
disclose patents to standards bodies, and have been penalized in the
past for failure perform their duties.  Now they want to destroy records
of their participation "to avoid legal liability". The liability is due
to failure to perform their duty to disclose, not from records of their
participation.

I've asserted (with evidence) in the past that the IETF is run by a
mafia which has no regard for the law. Some people disagree with my
assessment, but quite plainly, another organization must preserve these
records since the IETF most evidently cannot be trusted to do so.


		--Dean




On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 [e-mail] wrote:

> Martin Rex wrote:
> 
> > The problem here is that submitting an URL for the real IPR
> > disclosure in the IETF disclosure form is subverting to idea that
> > the IETF can archive the IPR disclosures in their original form.
> 
> No matter what the contents of the IPR disclosure are, I agree that
> having them archived by the IETF is a good idea (after all, the link 
> might get broken when Certicom redesigns their web site, or something).
> 
> The secretariat has now placed the PDF file in the same directory 
> on www.ietf.org as other IPR disclosure files:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/IPR/certicom%2520-ipr-contribution-to-ietfsept08.pdf
> 
> Best regards,
> Pasi
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000