IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Please discuss: draft-housley-evidence-extns-00

pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Thu, 11 January 2007 12:27 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4z1z-0003WM-IV; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:27:43 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4z1y-0003V1-2h for tls@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:27:42 -0500
Received: from mailhost-dr.auckland.ac.nz ([130.216.190.13] helo=harpo.itss.auckland.ac.nz) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4z1v-0001If-Lc for tls@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:27:42 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by harpo.itss.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238B634C74; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:27:35 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: from harpo.itss.auckland.ac.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtpc.itss.auckland.ac.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26461-18; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:27:35 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: from iris.cs.auckland.ac.nz (iris.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.33.152]) by harpo.itss.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0301D3491C; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:27:35 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: from medusa01.cs.auckland.ac.nz (medusa01.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.34.33]) by iris.cs.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CFD3128096; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:27:34 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: from pgut001 by medusa01.cs.auckland.ac.nz with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1H4z1z-0005fO-00; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:27:43 +1300
From: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
To: martin.rex@sap.com
Subject: Re: [TLS] Please discuss: draft-housley-evidence-extns-00
In-Reply-To: <200701111207.NAA25073@uw1048.wdf.sap.corp>
Message-Id: <E1H4z1z-0005fO-00@medusa01.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:27:43 +1300
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailhost.auckland.ac.nz
X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Cc: tls@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tls-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Martin Rex <martin.rex@sap.com> writes:
>Stefan Santesson wrote:
>> If we leave the concept of evidence out of scope and leave it to the
>> lawyers to worry about, is there any technical merits?
>
>Well, this amounts to
>
>  Capture&sign it all the bits and let the lawyers sort it out.

More importantly, what does it give us over "log the transaction in accordance
with established business practice and legal precedent"?  This whole
discussion seems to be following the path of the nonRepudiation bit boondoggle
in which a bunch of techies came up with a cool idea that, once lawyers looked
at it, was found to be totally meaningless.  If you're trying to define a
mechanism that has legal standing then you can't leave the lawyers out of it
or you'll just end up with another nonRepudiation bit.

Peter.


_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status