ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

2008-01-15 11:18:32
No Ted - When the Law sets standards for how media is managed then that is specific to the acceptance and use of the IETF's work products, so you are dead wrong. If the Court's set standards for authenticating email for instance which were not a part of RFC's then other standards would have to be drafted which may or may not link to IETF Standards.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Theodore Tso" <tytso(_at_)MIT(_dot_)EDU>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Richard Wilbur" <richard(_dot_)wilbur(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <campaigns(_at_)fsf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard


On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:27:02AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The FSF copntinues to attempt to re-open this decision.

I don't see any infomation content to these posts, beyond the
already known facts that 1) RMS has people read his Web site and 2)
perpetrates a one-way form of communication - we have to listen to
him but he has no intention of listening to us.

I suggest that we consider a mechanism for sending any message that
is CC'd to campaigns(_at_)fsf(_dot_)org straight to the bit bucket. The fact
that it is multiple individuals responding to an obsolete campaign
page rather than one noise maker does not make it any less
disruptive.

Actually, to be fair, I don't think this can be laid at the feet of
the FSF.  Todd Glassey replied to a message approximately 3 months old
with some legal reasoning that at best seems highly contorted, and at
worst total nonsense.  (For example, requirements for a claim of
tortious interference of prospective economic advantage, or TIPA, are
quite specific, and almost certainly don't apply; people who are
interested are invited to google the term for themselves, and/or pay a
lawyer for a legal opinion).

Whether they are or are not, Todd's legal thoughts make sense,
*discussion* of these sorts of legal matters are outside the bounds of
the IETF.  Applying law to facts requires a law degree to in order to
give legal advice and form a formal legal opinion, and most of the
people on the IETF mailing list are not lawyers.

Ted - when technology claims that the law that constrains it - does not apply since the technologis't working in those areas are ignorant of the law that they are constrained by only documents the incompetence of the standards process and the parties inside of it.


So while that message was not appropriate for the IETF list, it's not
fair to blame this on campaigns(_at_)fsf(_dot_)org(_dot_)

- Ted

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf