Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
James Seng wrote: > bad idea for engineers to play lawyers. "Engineer" means "someone who takes dreams and makes them real". "Lawyer" means "someone who takes nightmares and makes them real". I'd rather have an engineer play lawyer, than have a lawyer play engineer. -- : Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted.
Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Sandy Wills wrote: > James Seng wrote: > > > bad idea for engineers to play lawyers. > > "Engineer" means "someone who takes dreams and makes them real". > > "Lawyer" means "someone who takes nightmares and makes them real". > > I'd rather have an engineer play lawyer, than have a lawyer play > engineer. > > Yes, you are right. My question was regarding the purpose of that (...legal framework...) in a RFC. When we see the damage of the additional article in the WIPO (for example the article 10/11 in the copyright article)... That generate the DMCA in US and the EUCD in Europe. So global legal framework are quite dangerous in a RFC. IMVHO. adulau
Re: Comments: [AVT] Last Call: RTP Payload for Comfort Noise to ProposedStandard
Steve, et al, On 4/30/2002, at 12:52:03 AM, Stephan Casner wrote: >What the last sentence of the paragraph was trying to say is that if >there is a large change in the timestamp from one packet to the next, >but the sequence number only increments by one, then the receiver >knows that no packets were lost and that the gap in time was due to >intentional discontinuous transmission. OK, it's good to know that transmitters will be keeping sequence number consistency. :-) The problem in the above described situation is that the *receiver* won't know this until it receives the packet after the gap, which could be a long time, well longer than the depth of the receiver's jitter buffer. So, when the receiver's jitter buffer underflows, it has no way of distinguishing between: 1. the transmitter detected silence and just didn't bother to send any packets, and the receiver should play out silence; and 2. the network is congested, packets are getting lost, and the receiver should interpolate audio in an attempt to preserve audio quality. I hope you can all agree with me that action 2., above, is common practice whether explicit VAD and CN is being used and not. Beyond that, many would say that action 2. is extremely desirable, that the technique used to accomplish it is a key differentiator of their product(s), and that for the general good of VoIP maybe should be considered a recommended practice. But the general tone of your comment above, and elsewhere in the same e-mail, lead me to believe that you (and possibly others) do not support this, that you support *always* simply playing out silence if a packet is not available for playout at the required time (when the jitter buffer underflows). That's fine and dandy as your personal view. But the suggested language of the section of the RFC that you wrote would "standardize" this behavior in the face of extensive use of exactly the opposite behavior. The purpose of the comfort noise coding is *exactly* to allow the receiver to distinguish between cases 1. and 2., above. True, if packets are lost they could just as well have been CN packets as not (But if the last packet not lost was a CN packet, the receiver would interplotate comfort noise.). True, CN packets consume more bandwidth that sending nothing (But less than sending CODEC encoded near-silence.). Ya want to eliminate that bandwidth at a potential loss of audio quality when packets are lost, fine, don't implement or advertise support of CN. I think before this RFC can go forward, we need to clear this up. I think the best we can and must say is that if packets aren't received in time, the result is receiver implementation independent (Interpolate if ya want; play silence if ya want; play "Yankee Doodle" if ya want. Let the marketplace decide if they like interpolation, silence, or "Yankee Doodle" better.). I don't think we can say, or imply, or leave open to interpretation sans a statement to the contrary, that the intended action when packets are not received in time is to *always* play silence. Jim
RFC 3271 and Internet abuse
friends-- As a statement of ideology, I generally like RFC 3271. However, I *do* have a criticism to contribute... (I know. I should have known about the draft and contributed my comments sooner.) Vinton Cerf writes in RFC 3271: > >Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if we are not responsible >in its use and mindful of the rights of others who share its wealth. >Let us dedicate ourselves to the responsible use of this new medium >and to the proposition that with the freedoms the Internet enables >comes a commensurate responsibility to use these powerful enablers >with care and consideration. For those who choose to abuse these >privileges, let us dedicate ourselves to developing the necessary >tools to combat the abuse and punish the abuser. I'd like to see a more thoughtful statement about what kind of tools the Internet Society favors for countering Internet abuse. The final sentence in the paragraph above seems under-clear to me. As a personal statement of conviction, I would say that I favor tools that empower individuals cooperating in large numbers to make the decisions about who should be punished and to what extent. When such tools are efficacious, I think the Internet Society should favor them. It's much better when abusers are driven from the network because they can't attract buyers for their services, than when the cops have to run them off as a menace to the whole Internet. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can suggest better language. The problem is difficult. Perhaps if others were to offer suggestions, I could try to offer further improvements. -- j h woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
> "" >Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if legislation around the >world creates a thicket of incompatible laws that hinder the growth >of electronic commerce, stymie the protection of intellectual >property, and stifle freedom of expression and the development of >market economies. Let us dedicate ourselves to the creation of a >global legal framework in which laws work across national boundaries >to reinforce the upward spiral of value that the Internet is capable >of creating. > "" I'd like to propose an alternate paragraph here: "" Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if intellectual property laws continue to encroach on our freedom to develop and use new technologies, to share ideas and expressions of ideas with others, to comment on and criticize others' ideas and expressions of ideas, to restrict our use of ordinary language, and to effectively give a small number of people control over the distribution and licensing of popular works. Let us dedicate ourselves to the worldwide abolishment of the provisions in intellectual property laws - copyrights, patents, and trademarks - which stifle the freedom of expression and the development of a gloabl marketplace of ideas, to reinforce the upward spiral of real value (not to be confused with money) that the citizens of the world can create with the Internet's help. "" Keith
Re: RFC 3271 and Internet abuse
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:49:46 PDT, james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >with care and consideration. For those who choose to abuse these > >privileges, let us dedicate ourselves to developing the necessary > >tools to combat the abuse and punish the abuser. > > I'd like to see a more thoughtful statement about what kind of tools the > Internet Society favors for countering Internet abuse. The final > sentence in the paragraph above seems under-clear to me. It's under-clear because those of us who do network security and similar don't have a better idea of how to phrase it better. There's no clear-cut and obvious way to phrase it for the legal profession, and we're still working on how ot make the network itself abuse-proof. > As a personal statement of conviction, I would say that I favor tools > that empower individuals cooperating in large numbers to make the > decisions about who should be punished and to what extent. When such > tools are efficacious, I think the Internet Society should favor them. > It's much better when abusers are driven from the network because they > can't attract buyers for their services, than when the cops have to run > them off as a menace to the whole Internet. Now, although this may *sound* like a good idea, and has shown some limited areas of success (tools like MAPS and ORBS, or Vipul's Razor, for instance), there's some *very* tricky issues lurking here: 1) Remember that MAPS and ORBS do *NOT* reject spam mail. They merely maintain a database for you to consult and make your *OWN* decisions regarding whether *YOU* wish to reject a given piece of mail. This is a very important legal distinction, and necessary in most countries so that the people running the database don't end up in legal trouble, both civil and criminal, for conspiracy and restraint-of-trade. 2) Take a good close look at the last piece of spam you received, and ask yourself who to "punish" - keeping in mind that it could be a "joe job" (disguised to look like somebody else did it), or possibly even the result of a Klez/SirCam style worm. Also, remenber that any given user may only get 2 or 3 copies *at most* to work with, so you need a way to aggregate stuff (see Vipul's Razor or any of the IDS systems that have a 'network management' interface). This brings us to point 3: 3) Let's say that we decide that 3,000 reports of a given sPam is enough to "flag" a site as an offender (remember that even if only 1% of the users *report* it, that's over a quarter million spams...). This leads to an interesting Denial of Service attack: Large Corporation A sends 10,000 workers home with forged spam for them to "report", causing B-Corp Ltd's main e-mail gateway to get flagged as a spamhaus. If you don't think this *WILL* happen, note that the corporation responsible for 'astroturfing' in the Jargon File was caught trying to stack an online poll recently... 4) Although there are corners of the world that have corrupt judges and police, or concept of "justice" that may be greatly at odds with your own, most parts of the world have a workable definition of "due process". Although a grass-roots "we dont want it" campaign *might* be good enough to stop spammers, it certainly won't cut it in the cybercrime arena (and I speak here as somebody who at least once a week was accused of doing slow portscans of people. Oddly enough, the UDP source port was always 123, and the machine was the A record that the CNAME ntp-2.vt.edu pointed at. Go figure ;) This is certainly *not* the sort of thing you want IWF (Idiot With Firewall) users doing, there needs to be some clued and trained investigators, due process, and all that stuff. 5) Instead of finding a way to punish the bad guys, consider rewarding the good guys instead. (Warning: shameless plug - see disclosure below) See if your organization can specify "must be hardened against the SANS/FBI Top 20 list", or "scores at least a 7 on the apppropriate Center for Internet Security benchmark *out of the box*", or similar. Make it a lot harder for the bad guys. If you have a reason to not like the SANS or CIS lists, feel free to use some other criterion and demand safer systems from vendors. 6) Patch and secure the systems you've got - no sense in being a target. ;) Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech Disclosure: I was heavily involved in producing the SANS/FBI Top 20 list, and have been involved in the CIS benchmark process as well. I don't get any financial benefit from it, only the knowledge that every time a system gets tightened down, the net gets a bit safer
Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
well, keith since we cannot amend RFCs maybe you should prepare one of your own? I am not sure that the idea of killing intellectual property is the right one either. We all know there is something wrong with the current set up but I am no sure that the wholesale dispatch of Intellectual Property concepts is the right answer either! vint At 08:16 PM 4/30/2002 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: >> "" >>Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if legislation around the >>world creates a thicket of incompatible laws that hinder the growth >>of electronic commerce, stymie the protection of intellectual >>property, and stifle freedom of expression and the development of >>market economies. Let us dedicate ourselves to the creation of a >>global legal framework in which laws work across national boundaries >>to reinforce the upward spiral of value that the Internet is capable >>of creating. >> "" > >I'd like to propose an alternate paragraph here: > >"" >Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if intellectual property laws >continue to encroach on our freedom to develop and use new technologies, >to share ideas and expressions of ideas with others, to comment on and >criticize others' ideas and expressions of ideas, to restrict our use >of ordinary language, and to effectively give a small number of people >control over the distribution and licensing of popular works. Let us >dedicate ourselves to the worldwide abolishment of the provisions in >intellectual property laws - copyrights, patents, and trademarks - which >stifle the freedom of expression and the development of a gloabl marketplace >of ideas, to reinforce the upward spiral of real value (not to be confused >with money) that the citizens of the world can create with the Internet's >help. >"" > >Keith
Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
> well, keith since we cannot amend RFCs maybe you should prepare one of your own? maybe. > I am not sure that the idea of killing intellectual property is the right one either. > We all know there is something wrong with the current set up but I am no sure that > the wholesale dispatch of Intellectual Property concepts is the right answer either! nor did I quite suggest doing that. however, there seems to be a strong and alarming tendency for global legal frameworks on IPR to discourage, rather than encourage, the notion that the Internet is for everyone. or perhaps they encourage the notion that the Internet is for everyone to be a consumer of works that are produced and controlled by a few large companies, rather than a vehicle which enables everyone to share their ideas, expressions, and experiences with others. Keith
Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
i think people should be free to create and share but that those who wish to claim rights should not be prevented from doing so. vint At 12:14 AM 5/1/2002 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: >however, there seems to be a strong and alarming tendency for global legal frameworks >on >IPR to discourage, rather than encourage, the notion that the Internet is for >everyone. >or perhaps they encourage the notion that the Internet is for everyone to be a >consumer >of works that are produced and controlled by a few large companies, rather than a >vehicle >which enables everyone to share their ideas, expressions, and experiences with others.
Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
> i think people should be free to create and share but that those who wish to claim > rights should not be prevented from doing so. sure - but which rights they should be able to claim, what remedies should be available when rights are violated, and what presumptions are made by the law until disputes are adjucated? slightly different answers to these questions have drastically different effects. Keith
rfc 3271
Yes keeping the government out of the internet is a tremendous task. We will continue to have governments until we no longer need them. That's my view. My personal chief concern right now is if they begin taxing products bought and sold over the net. This thing the FBI is rumored to have a carnivore box. Do the ISP's have to let them hook them up to this thing?
Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
> i think people should be free to create and share but that those who wish to > claim rights should not be prevented from doing so. > > vint Claiming rights is different to be able to enforce rights. It would be useful if there was a document which helped clarify the limits to enforcement given innate behaviours of the Internet. It would be useful if a vision statement went beyond a passive assertion that free information exchange was useful, and took a position that it was actually a very important thing. For instance, it could assert that the assumed state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions ab initio. Given the extent to which the Internet leveraged public funding processes in R&D and education, I am suprised there isn't more explicit mention of the benefits of that leveraged outcome. Do we have to be neutral? cheers -George
Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
Well, I am doing my part by exercising my rights to avoid buying any of the stuff that does not let me copy it, and I will not buy any computer stuff that is unable to copy stuff. And, so I agree that if the IPR folk want to be so damned proprietary, they can just sit at home with all their unsold stuff. If they tie up the Internet as we know it, the USENET WILL RISE AGAIN and we will have two Internets passing in the night. And, after a while, things will come back together with the re-introduction of sanity. Is this not how the world always muddles through? Fortunately, there remains a group of people who have kept the USENET spirit alive while the Internet has run over almost everything else. So there;-)...\Stef PS: And, I did not appreciate USENET for what it was (and is) at the time;-! At 12:39 AM -0400 5/1/02, Keith Moore wrote: > > i think people should be free to create and share but that those who wish > > to claim rights should not be prevented from doing so. > >sure - but which rights they should be able to claim, what remedies should be >available when rights are violated, and what presumptions are made by the law >until disputes are adjucated? slightly different answers to these questions >have drastically different effects. > >Keith
Re: rfc 3271
On Wed, 01 May 2002 00:44:33 EDT, Bill Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > My personal chief concern right now is if they begin taxing products bought I'd be more worried about the *paperwork* involved than the actual tax... > and sold over the net. This thing the FBI is rumored to have a carnivore It's not a rumor. > box. Do the ISP's have to let them hook them up to this thing? Well.. you know.. there's this thing called a subpoena.. Usually kind of hard to ignore them. ;) Clued ISPs already have networks instrumented to trap the sort of things that Carnivore catches (now *that* should make you think for a moment, too). Carnivore is targeted at the less-clued ISPs, where hooking it up once would be a major benefit. Of course, the problem then becomes "How do you make sure it's only capturing the data it's supposed to?" (Read http://www.epic.org/crypto/scarfo/murch_aff.pdf for a good example of how hard it is to only record the data that you're supposed to - and then ask yourself how it would have played out differently if the FBI had decided to be a bit less careful about following ALL the rules in that case...). /Valdis
