Re: Working Group Last Call and naming for draft-ietf-trade-drt-requirements-01.txt

Renato Iannella <renato@iprsystems.com> Thu, 11 January 2001 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-trade-errors@lists.elistx.com>
Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) id <0G70001015DQ63@eListX.com> (original mail from ietf-trade-moderator@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:25:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) id <0G6Z00K01IXQHV@eListX.com> for ietf-trade-moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:20:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) id <0G6Z00K01IXPHU@eListX.com> for ietf-trade-moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:20:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) id <0G6Z00K04IXPHR@eListX.com> for ietf-trade-moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:20:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) id <0G6Z00K01IXOHP@eListX.com> for ietf-trade@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:20:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) id <0G6Z00K01IXOHO@eListX.com> for ietf-trade@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:20:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from iprsystems.com (mail.iprsystems.com [203.33.146.234]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) with ESMTP id <0G6Z00JCNIXK4S@eListX.com> for ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:20:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cpe-203-45-141-131.qld.bigpond.net.au ([203.45.141.131] verified) by iprsystems.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 580112; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:22:50 +1000
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:19:07 +1000
From: Renato Iannella <renato@iprsystems.com>
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call and naming for draft-ietf-trade-drt-requirements-01.txt
In-reply-to: <200101032124.QAA08280@torque.pothole.com>
To: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com
Cc: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, lde008@dma.isg.mot.com
Message-id: <567731.3188218747@localhost>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.5 (MacOS)
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-trade-help@lists.elistx.com>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com?body=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com?body=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade>
List-Help: <http://lists.elistx.com/doc/email-manage.html>, <mailto:ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com?body=help>

--On 3/1/01 4:24 PM -0500 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:

> As far as I know, the only point
> in controversy is the name of the things for which trading
> requirements are given.  Suggestions have included digital rights,
> electronic rights, trading right, entitlement, coupon, and certificate
> as well as generic rights.  But most suggestions have some particular
> problem as well.  Unless there is a consensus to change, as show by
> discussion on this mailing list, we will stick with the current
> terminology.

I still believe that using "rights" is misleading for this document.
A more appropriate term would be "voucher". (In fact, you should be
able to do a string find/replace through-out the whole document.)

All the examples in the document are focussed on the value of
an "exchange ticket" for an *arbitrary* good or service.

Use of "rights" implies intellectual/legal/social behaviours, such
as copyright, moral rights etc. The modelling, requirements, languages
for this type of right is significant (see [1] to [11]).

This leads me to the point in "Section 7. Q & A"

----
  - Is it possible to ensure digital "property" rights?

  Yes, since digital property rights can be considered as a kind of
  electronic-right. RTS, however, would need to be extended by adding
  some protected rendering system that would regenerate the original
  digital contents securely.
-----

I would say they answer is "No". You cannot _ensure_ this.
(see the references below)


Cheers...Renato                       <http://purl.net/net/renato>
Chief Scientist, IPR Systems Pty Ltd       <http://iprsystems.com>
W3C Workshop on Digital Rights <http://w3.org/2000/11/w3c-drm-cfp>


DRM Modelling
[1] http://www.indecs.org/
[2] http://www.propagate.net/
[3] http://www.openebook.org/framework/

DRM Background Papers
[4] http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/ericksonRT19990624.pdf
[5] http://www.iprsystems.com/whitepapers/Papers/Rights_Management.pdf
[6] http://www.cisp.org/imp/february_2000/02_00gladney.htm
[7] http://mjosa.stanford.edu/~roscheis/IMA/index.html

DRM Requirements
[8] http://www.publishers.org/home/drm.pdf
[9] http://www.cselt.it/leonardo/mpeg/public/mpeg-4_ipmp.zip

DRM Languages
[10] http:://odrl.net
[11] http://www.xrml.org