Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: New FAQ on IETF Copyright Policy available (FYI)

[Simon Josefsson]

Ed Juskevicius  writes:

> FYI, a well-written new FAQ has just been posted to the IETF Trust website.

Thank you!

This may sound as nit-picking, but is there any particular reason why
IETF Trust documents aren't written using the excellent xml2rfc tool?  I
find the output from xml2rfc is more readable.

These documents could also be submitted as proper I-D's, to provide
better archival, searching, and cross-referencing of the documents.

/Simon
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: [Ietf-honest] Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

$100 so far

And Dean is in my state so small claims is just down the road.


-Original Message-
From: ietf-honest-boun...@lists.iadl.org on behalf of Dean Anderson
Sent: Mon 3/23/2009 10:46 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: ietf-hon...@lists.iadl.org; ietf@ietf.org; dcroc...@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [Ietf-honest] Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
 
On 24 Mar 2009, John Levine wrote:

> On the other hand, given the long, long history of abusive and
> disruptive behavior, perhaps it's time for a regular cease and desist
> from the IETF's lawyer.

You mean 'disruptive' like disrupting a discussion by namecalling like
this:

 http://www.iadl.org/vixie/index.html

I bet not. I have never been disruptive and do not engage in frivolous
name-calling. When I say something about someone, it is substantive and
relevant.  Of course, Mr. Levine has previously been discredited:

 http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/JohnLevine/index.html

--Dean

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


___
Ietf-honest mailing list
ietf-hon...@lists.iadl.org
http://lists.iadl.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-honest

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

NoteWell use pertains to the IETF Mailing Lists too - but hey - anyone with half a brain should have known that - WAS: Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Todd Glassey CISM CIFI]

Melinda Shore wrote:

I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing
list, and I'm unhappy about it.
Sorry Melinda - boy are your wrong - and you need to know that you may 
need to get legal advice on this - because you nor anyone else here owns 
their own IP addresses anymore... you gave them away to the IETF when 
you submitted them to the IETF under the NoteWell provisions.


I personally warned the IETF that the Mailing Lists were included in the 
NoteWell licensing and that anyone operation of a Mailing List form the 
IETF's would constitute a Derivative Work of that Publication several 
years ago.



I don't know what his
current status is with regard to the ietf@ietf.org
mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing
this mailing list by snagging names from it and
putting us on his mailing list without asking.
Yeah,  NO HE IS NOT - the NoteWell rules specifically allow that - and 
they CANNOT BE RETROACTIVELY CHANGED  - but its amusing that you think 
they don't.  The EMAIL Addresses in any IETF mailing list are fair game 
for ANYONE under the IETF's idiotic ANY and ALL USES proviso - but hey...

I'm also
not thrilled that the "welcome" message he sends out
fails to clearly identify who's sending it and that
he does not represent the IETF.  

So far this is the only complaint I think holds water...

This is a small problem
but a problem nonetheless.
Actually the problem is the IPR WG Management and its refusal to take 
notice of these issues such that they could be addressed before the IESG 
put those documents into production as the current-controlling contract 
instances. Now you and everyone else here has the problem that any 
mass-marketer can demand the IETF produce those mailing lists, for their 
use under NoteWell  or simply extract them and them turn the 
email-spigot on.


By the way - NoteWell conveyance of an Email Address would also control 
the ability to 'opt out' I am betting - my argument is that it 
eliminates it and that is based on the persistent any and all uses 
language - especially since the use of the mailing list would be in 
republishing IETF content - only this time its a mailing list header and 
the commercial content of the Spammer's


Nice move IPR-WG - I say you screwed the pooch just about as much as is 
possible here.


Todd Glassey

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: NoteWell use pertains to the IETF Mailing Lists too - but hey - anyone with half a brain should have known that - WAS: Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Melinda Shore]

Todd Glassey CISM CIFI wrote:
Sorry Melinda - boy are your wrong - and you need to know that you may 
need to get legal advice on this - because you nor anyone else here owns 
their own IP addresses anymore... you gave them away to the IETF when 
you submitted them to the IETF under the NoteWell provisions.


Todd, if you can't figure out the differences between
an IP address and an email address, delivering packets and
delivering email, well, I don't know.

And Dean's *not* "the IETF."  The IETF has some people
acting in designated capacities but Dean isn't one of
them.  I agreed to receive email from IETF mailing lists.
I did not agree to be put on any mailing list created by
any random crank with an axe to grind.

Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: New FAQ on IETF Copyright Policy available (FYI)

[Ed Juskevicius]

Simon, Thank you for your message.

> ... is there any particular reason why IETF Trust documents aren't written
>  using the excellent xml2rfc tool?

Actually ... no.

This is a good suggestion.

Best Regards,

Ed


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:

> Ed Juskevicius  writes:
>
> > FYI, a well-written new FAQ has just been posted to the IETF Trust
> website.
>
> Thank you!
>
> This may sound as nit-picking, but is there any particular reason why
> IETF Trust documents aren't written using the excellent xml2rfc tool?  I
> find the output from xml2rfc is more readable.
>
> These documents could also be submitted as proper I-D's, to provide
> better archival, searching, and cross-referencing of the documents.
>
> /Simon
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: NoteWell use pertains to the IETF Mailing Lists too - but hey - anyone with half a brain should have known that - WAS: Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Todd, if you can't figure out the differences between
> an IP address and an email address, delivering packets and
> delivering email, well, I don't know.
>
> And Dean's *not* "the IETF."  The IETF has some people
> acting in designated capacities but Dean isn't one of
> them.  I agreed to receive email from IETF mailing lists.
> I did not agree to be put on any mailing list created by
> any random crank with an axe to grind.

Unfortunately, ignoring random cranks with an axe to grind seems to be
the only thing that helps.  Anything else just encourages them.  :-(

  - Ted
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Fred Baker]

well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list  
that has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other  
members as he chooses?


You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite.  
Someone set up a mailing list that was subscribed to ietf@ietf.org and  
filtered some of our more interesting personalities. Folks that  
subscribed to it go a feed without the comments of (or replies to)  
those individuals. Many moved their subscriptions.


Are you asking the Trust, or the IETF leadership, to send a cease and  
desist letter?


On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:


I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing
list, and I'm unhappy about it.  I don't know what his
current status is with regard to the ietf@ietf.org
mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing
this mailing list by snagging names from it and
putting us on his mailing list without asking.  I'm also
not thrilled that the "welcome" message he sends out
fails to clearly identify who's sending it and that
he does not represent the IETF.  This is a small problem
but a problem nonetheless.

Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

comments on draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-09.txt

[David McGrew]

Hello,

I have some concerns about draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-09; there are  
several issues that deserve to be addressed.  This message is a  
response to the last call.


There is no definition of how CCM and GCM are to be used to protect  
RTCP.  It would not be possible to use this specification to protect  
RTCP packets with those algorithms.


Section 2.2 defines the "Additional Authentication Data (AAD)" as "the  
header of the RTP packet", which does not include the RTP Contributing  
Source (CSRC) identifiers and optional RTP header extension.  Since  
these fields are not included in SRTP encryption, their omission from  
the AAD input means that they are left unauthenticated.  Presumably  
this omission was inadvertent.


Section 2.1 defines the CTR counter format to match RFC 3711, while  
Section 3 defines a different counter format for CCM and GCM. The  
latter format does not have any "salt" in it, unlike the former  
format.  This omission seems like a bad idea, since there is  
essentially zero cost for including the salt in the counter, and the  
salt provides quantifiable security benefits.  It protects against key  
collision attacks and time-memory tradeoff attacks (see http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/old/mcgrew00attacks.html 
 for example) and also makes integral cryptanalysis (the "SQUARE"  
attack) considerably more difficult.  This last point is important for  
CCM and GCM since counter mode provides exactly the inputs that are  
needed in order to prosecute this type of attack.  SEED was designed  
not long after the initial description of integral cryptanalysis, but  
before that attack was fully developed.  The prudent thing to do would  
be to use a GCM and CCM counter format that that includes the salt  
value.


Below I have some editorial comments.

In Section 2, I don't understand the meaning of "and valuables" and I  
suggest just removing the phrase.


Section 2.1 says:

   Implementations of this specification MUST use SEED-CTR in
   conjunction with an authentication function.

I think that what is actually meant is:

   When SEED-CTR is used, it must be used only in
   conjunction with an authentication function.

Section 2.2 says:

   This does not comply with the SRTP packet processing
   defined in section 3.3 of [RFC3711].

I think that what is meant is that the specification is meant to  
supersede RFC 3711, or one section of it.  This needs to be clarified.


Section 2.2 says that "the number of octets in the nonce SHOULD be  
12".  SHOULD needs to be changed to MUST in order to ensure  
interoperability.


Section 4 says "The SEED-CTR PRF is defined in a similar manner."
Presumably it means " ... defined in a similar manner, but with each  
invocation of AES replaced with an invocation of SEED."


In Section 5, I suggest clarifying that "mandatory to implement" means  
conformance to the specification, and that Table 1 does not supersede  
RFC 3711.


Lastly, I suggest that the status of the SEED algorithm within the  
Republic of Korea be clarified.  RFC 4009 says that it is "a national  
standard encryption algorithm", which suggests a special governmental  
status, while RFC 4269 does not say that, and instead says that it  
"has been adopted by most of the security systems", and draft-ietf-avt- 
seed-srtp says that it is "a Korean National Industrial Association  
standard and is widely used in South Korea for electronic commerce and  
financial services that are operated on wired and wireless  
communications."Does SEED have a particular standing with the  
government of the Republic of Korea, as RFC 4009 suggests?   If so, it  
would be good to state that.


Best regards,

David


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Ole Jacobsen]

I think he added the ietf list as a whole. When I tried to
unsubscribe it said I needed a password which it never sent,
so I assume I am not "on" his list the strict sense.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj


On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Fred Baker wrote:

> well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list that
> has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other members as he
> chooses?
> 
> You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite. Someone set
> up a mailing list that was subscribed to ietf@ietf.org and filtered some of
> our more interesting personalities. Folks that subscribed to it go a feed
> without the comments of (or replies to) those individuals. Many moved their
> subscriptions.
> 
> Are you asking the Trust, or the IETF leadership, to send a cease and desist
> letter?
> 
> On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> 
> >I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing
> >list, and I'm unhappy about it.  I don't know what his
> >current status is with regard to the ietf@ietf.org
> >mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing
> >this mailing list by snagging names from it and
> >putting us on his mailing list without asking.  I'm also
> >not thrilled that the "welcome" message he sends out
> >fails to clearly identify who's sending it and that
> >he does not represent the IETF.  This is a small problem
> >but a problem nonetheless.
> >
> >Melinda
> >___
> >Ietf mailing list
> >Ietf@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[David Morris]

I was subscribed and was able to unsubcribe w/o any difficulties so as to 
make the experience memorable. I would much prefer to not have been 
bothered.


I recall very fondly the list filtered relay Fred mentions ... 
unfortunately, one day it just stopped functioning w/o warning.


Dave Morris

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:


I think he added the ietf list as a whole. When I tried to
unsubscribe it said I needed a password which it never sent,
so I assume I am not "on" his list the strict sense.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj


On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Fred Baker wrote:


well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list that
has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other members as he
chooses?

You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite. Someone set
up a mailing list that was subscribed to ietf@ietf.org and filtered some of
our more interesting personalities. Folks that subscribed to it go a feed
without the comments of (or replies to) those individuals. Many moved their
subscriptions.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Kurt Zeilenga]

The newly minted RFC 5429 offers a solution:

if envelope :domain :contains "from" ["av8.net", "av8.com",  
"iadl.org"] {

ereject "go away"; stop;
}

-- Kurt
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Ole Jacobsen]

Dean,

The web interface is broken. I don't have the initial password and it 
won't send me a new one.

Please cease and desist this nonsense and unsubscribe me promptly, I
never asked to be on your list, nor did anyone else that you added.

You're a spammer, plain and simple.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj


On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Dean Anderson wrote:

> The password was sent in the subscription mail.  The mailing list
> manager is GNU mailman, which is the same software many of the IETF
> lists uses, including i...@ietf.org. List management is the same, and
> the welcome message includes the password. In addition, mailman provides
> a web interface, which can be found at:
> 
> List-Unsubscribe: ,
> 
> List-Archive: 
> List-Post: 
> List-Help: 
> List-Subscribe: ,
> 
> 
> RFC2369 headers are included in each list message.
> 
> Logs show that Ole Jacobsen was added on February 28, 2009, after a post 
> to the IETF list.
> 
>   --Dean
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> 
> > I think he added the ietf list as a whole. When I tried to
> > unsubscribe it said I needed a password which it never sent,
> > so I assume I am not "on" his list the strict sense.
> > 
> > Ole
> > 
> > Ole J. Jacobsen
> > Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
> > Cisco Systems
> > Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> > E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
> > 
> > > well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list 
> > > that
> > > has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other members as he
> > > chooses?
> > > 
> > > You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite. 
> > > Someone set
> > > up a mailing list that was subscribed to ietf@ietf.org and filtered some 
> > > of
> > > our more interesting personalities. Folks that subscribed to it go a feed
> > > without the comments of (or replies to) those individuals. Many moved 
> > > their
> > > subscriptions.
> > > 
> > > Are you asking the Trust, or the IETF leadership, to send a cease and 
> > > desist
> > > letter?
> > > 
> > > On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > > 
> > > >I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing
> > > >list, and I'm unhappy about it.  I don't know what his
> > > >current status is with regard to the ietf@ietf.org
> > > >mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing
> > > >this mailing list by snagging names from it and
> > > >putting us on his mailing list without asking.  I'm also
> > > >not thrilled that the "welcome" message he sends out
> > > >fails to clearly identify who's sending it and that
> > > >he does not represent the IETF.  This is a small problem
> > > >but a problem nonetheless.
> > > >
> > > >Melinda
> > > >___
> > > >Ietf mailing list
> > > >Ietf@ietf.org
> > > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > 
> > > ___
> > > Ietf mailing list
> > > Ietf@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > 
> > ___
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000   
> 
> 
> 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Von Wootten, Karl]

Dean,
I feel that this issue has gone on Long enough It seems to me that by not 
allowing people to opt out and by unsolicited subscriptions you are only 
damaging your own reputation. I read what is posted to the lists I subscribe to 
so that I can do my job better. Not to waste time with these silly flame wars. 
Can we please put an end to this?

Karl von Wootten
System Engineer Infrastructure Services
NSW Department of Education and Training
Ph: 02 84254515 
Mob: 0406 996 300
Fax: 02 9942 9638 


-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole 
Jacobsen
Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2009 9:41 AM
To: Dean Anderson
Cc: ietf-hon...@lists.iadl.org; Fred Baker; 'IETF Discussion Mailing List'
Subject: Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

Dean,

The web interface is broken. I don't have the initial password and it 
won't send me a new one.

Please cease and desist this nonsense and unsubscribe me promptly, I
never asked to be on your list, nor did anyone else that you added.

You're a spammer, plain and simple.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj


On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Dean Anderson wrote:

> The password was sent in the subscription mail.  The mailing list
> manager is GNU mailman, which is the same software many of the IETF
> lists uses, including i...@ietf.org. List management is the same, and
> the welcome message includes the password. In addition, mailman provides
> a web interface, which can be found at:
> 
> List-Unsubscribe: ,
> 
> List-Archive: 
> List-Post: 
> List-Help: 
> List-Subscribe: ,
> 
> 
> RFC2369 headers are included in each list message.
> 
> Logs show that Ole Jacobsen was added on February 28, 2009, after a post 
> to the IETF list.
> 
>   --Dean
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> 
> > I think he added the ietf list as a whole. When I tried to
> > unsubscribe it said I needed a password which it never sent,
> > so I assume I am not "on" his list the strict sense.
> > 
> > Ole
> > 
> > Ole J. Jacobsen
> > Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
> > Cisco Systems
> > Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> > E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
> > 
> > > well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list 
> > > that
> > > has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other members as he
> > > chooses?
> > > 
> > > You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite. 
> > > Someone set
> > > up a mailing list that was subscribed to ietf@ietf.org and filtered some 
> > > of
> > > our more interesting personalities. Folks that subscribed to it go a feed
> > > without the comments of (or replies to) those individuals. Many moved 
> > > their
> > > subscriptions.
> > > 
> > > Are you asking the Trust, or the IETF leadership, to send a cease and 
> > > desist
> > > letter?
> > > 
> > > On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > > 
> > > >I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing
> > > >list, and I'm unhappy about it.  I don't know what his
> > > >current status is with regard to the ietf@ietf.org
> > > >mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing
> > > >this mailing list by snagging names from it and
> > > >putting us on his mailing list without asking.  I'm also
> > > >not thrilled that the "welcome" message he sends out
> > > >fails to clearly identify who's sending it and that
> > > >he does not represent the IETF.  This is a small problem
> > > >but a problem nonetheless.
> > > >
> > > >Melinda
> > > >___
> > > >Ietf mailing list
> > > >Ietf@ietf.org
> > > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > 
> > > ___
> > > Ietf mailing list
> > > Ietf@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > 
> > ___
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000   
> 
> 
> 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
**
This message is intended for the

IPR/Copyright

[John C Klensin]

Hi.

I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
share an impression and suggestion.

While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
reopen old battles, etc.,  there is really only one issue at
this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to 

* try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
signoff from previous contributors or

* treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
of the rights if they are willing to do that but
otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.

>From reading the correspondence on the list, I believe that the
community prefers the latter although the former has some strong
advocates.   I'd like to see if we can focus on those questions
to see if a conclusion can be reached about the principle before
more Internet-Drafts are written.

I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
choice, then we are finished.  The Trustees would presumably
follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
existing workaround as permanent, and  we would all move on.

IMO, "finished" would be a big win -- no more I-Ds on the
subject, no need for a new or renewed WG, no more cycles of
people with better ways to spend their IETF time  going into
these efforts, etc.

Of course, YMMD.
 john

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IPR/Copyright

[Scott Brim]

John, I believe you read the consensus right.  "authors obtain all of
the rights they are willing to".

Excerpts from John C Klensin on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 07:35:55PM -0400:
> Hi.
> 
> I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
> share an impression and suggestion.
> 
> While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
> reopen old battles, etc.,  there is really only one issue at
> this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to 
> 
>   * try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
>   obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
>   signoff from previous contributors or
>   
>   * treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
>   provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
>   of the rights if they are willing to do that but
>   otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.
> 
> >From reading the correspondence on the list, I believe that the
> community prefers the latter although the former has some strong
> advocates.   I'd like to see if we can focus on those questions
> to see if a conclusion can be reached about the principle before
> more Internet-Drafts are written.
> 
> I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
> choice, then we are finished.  The Trustees would presumably
> follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
> existing workaround as permanent, and  we would all move on.
> 
> IMO, "finished" would be a big win -- no more I-Ds on the
> subject, no need for a new or renewed WG, no more cycles of
> people with better ways to spend their IETF time  going into
> these efforts, etc.
> 
> Of course, YMMD.
>  john
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Proposal RE: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

I suggest that all mail that is cross posted to Mr Andreson IETF-Honest or 
whatever other spam list Mr Spammer decides to create be blocked from all IETF 
lists.
 
That way any IETF-er who feeds the troll will not anoy the rest. And any 
IETF-er who blacklists Mr Spammer and his spam lists will have an Anderson-free 
experience.
 
Since Mr Spammer's objective here is to cause the spillover into the IETF list, 
it is my expectation that he will cease this particular tactic.
 
 
 



From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Von Wootten, Karl
Sent: Tue 3/24/2009 7:29 PM
To: 'Ole Jacobsen'; Dean Anderson
Cc: ietf-hon...@lists.iadl.org; Fred Baker; 'IETF Discussion Mailing List'
Subject: RE: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"



Dean,
I feel that this issue has gone on Long enough It seems to me that by not 
allowing people to opt out and by unsolicited subscriptions you are only 
damaging your own reputation. I read what is posted to the lists I subscribe to 
so that I can do my job better. Not to waste time with these silly flame wars. 
Can we please put an end to this?

Karl von Wootten
System Engineer Infrastructure Services
NSW Department of Education and Training
Ph: 02 84254515
Mob: 0406 996 300
Fax: 02 9942 9638


-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole 
Jacobsen
Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2009 9:41 AM
To: Dean Anderson
Cc: ietf-hon...@lists.iadl.org; Fred Baker; 'IETF Discussion Mailing List'
Subject: Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

Dean,

The web interface is broken. I don't have the initial password and it
won't send me a new one.

Please cease and desist this nonsense and unsubscribe me promptly, I
never asked to be on your list, nor did anyone else that you added.

You're a spammer, plain and simple.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj


On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Dean Anderson wrote:

> The password was sent in the subscription mail.  The mailing list
> manager is GNU mailman, which is the same software many of the IETF
> lists uses, including i...@ietf.org. List management is the same, and
> the welcome message includes the password. In addition, mailman provides
> a web interface, which can be found at:
>
> List-Unsubscribe: ,
> 
> List-Archive: 
> List-Post: 
> List-Help: 
> List-Subscribe: ,
> 
>
> RFC2369 headers are included in each list message.
>
> Logs show that Ole Jacobsen was added on February 28, 2009, after a post
> to the IETF list.
>
>   --Dean
>
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> > I think he added the ietf list as a whole. When I tried to
> > unsubscribe it said I needed a password which it never sent,
> > so I assume I am not "on" his list the strict sense.
> >
> > Ole
> >
> > Ole J. Jacobsen
> > Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
> > Cisco Systems
> > Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> > E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
> >
> > > well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list 
> > > that
> > > has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other members as he
> > > chooses?
> > >
> > > You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite. 
> > > Someone set
> > > up a mailing list that was subscribed to ietf@ietf.org and filtered some 
> > > of
> > > our more interesting personalities. Folks that subscribed to it go a feed
> > > without the comments of (or replies to) those individuals. Many moved 
> > > their
> > > subscriptions.
> > >
> > > Are you asking the Trust, or the IETF leadership, to send a cease and 
> > > desist
> > > letter?
> > >
> > > On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > >
> > > >I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing
> > > >list, and I'm unhappy about it.  I don't know what his
> > > >current status is with regard to the ietf@ietf.org
> > > >mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing
> > > >this mailing list by snagging names from it and
> > > >putting us on his mailing list without asking.  I'm also
> > > >not thrilled that the "welcome" message he sends out
> > > >fails to clearly identify who's sending it and that
> > > >he does not represent the IETF.  This is a small problem
> > > >but a problem nonetheless.
> > > >
> > > >Melinda
> > > >___
> > > >Ietf mailing list
> > > >Ietf@ietf.org
> >

Re: IPR/Copyright

[SM]

At 16:35 24-03-2009, John C Klensin wrote:

I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
share an impression and suggestion.

While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
reopen old battles, etc.,  there is really only one issue at
this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to

* try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
signoff from previous contributors or

* treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
of the rights if they are willing to do that but
otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.


That would be the "minimum solution".   It does not require authors 
to act as lawyers, hire lawyers, or perform a risk assessment to 
figure out what they need to do.



I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
choice, then we are finished.  The Trustees would presumably
follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
existing workaround as permanent, and  we would all move on.


There is no pressing copyright problem to solve as there is the 
existing workaround.  Unless there is a compelling reason for the 
first choice, I don't see a need to spend more time on this issue.


Regards,
-sm 


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

request for community assistance regarding TICTOC requirements

[Yaakov Stein]

Hi all,

The TICTOC WG is finalizing the scope of its requirements draft.

As of now the draft has information regarding the timing requirements for
-Cellular Backhauling
-Circuit Emulation
-Test and Measurement
-ToD over the general Internet
we have still unintegrated information for
-Sensor networks
-Legal uses of time
-Industrial Automation
and we have removed two applications for lack of interest or feasibility
-Remote Telco
-Electric power distribution.

We are still soliciting help in gathering requirements information for
-Uses of precise time in networking
-Metrology
If anyone can help in these latter applications, please contact the TICTOC 
chairs.
If no interest is expressed, we intend removing these applications from the list
of applications being considered.

In addition, if someone feels we missed an application that requires
distribution of timing information, it is possibly not too late to consider its 
inclusion.

Thanks

Y(J)S


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

[Douglas Otis]

On Mar 23, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:




Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
It's happened to me twice, with two different lists of his.  I've  
complained to him, but to no avail.  I wonder if the CAN SPAM act  
applies.


IANAL but my impression is that it definitely does apply, possibly  
multiply and possibly even with sanctions.  As noted, this is a  
relatively tricky topic, but I am still pretty sure he goes far  
beyond the limits it defines.


http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C103.txt

The term "commercial electronic mail message" means any electronic  
mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial  
advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service  
(including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial  
purpose).  The term "commercial electronic mail message" does not  
include a transactional or relationship message.


Transactional or relationships include:
a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable ongoing  
commercial relationship involving the ongoing purchase or use by the  
recipient of products or services offered by the sender;  (iv) to  
provide information directly related to an employment relationship or  
related benefit plan in which the recipient is currently involved,  
participating, or enrolled;


where:
 It is the sense of Congress that -
(1) Spam has become the method of choice for those who distribute  
pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and introduce viruses,  
worms, and Trojan horses into personal and business computer systems;  
and
(2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law enforcement  
tools to investigate and prosecute those who send bulk commercial e- 
mail to facilitate the commission of Federal crimes, including the  
tools contained in chapters 47 and 63 of title 18 (relating to fraud  
and false statements); chapter 71 of title 18 (relating to obscenity);  
chapter 110 of title 18 (relating to the sexual exploitation of  
children); and chapter 95 of title 18 (relating to racketeering), as  
appropriate.


CAN-SPAM also limits legal standing to network providers and law  
enforcement.


Since the IETF distributes email-addresses of subscribers, rather than  
obscuring them, when email-addresses are obtained from received  
messages that relate to some ongoing issue, this would not be  
harvesting.  It is not uncommon to even see emails that ask why you  
unsubscribed.  As long as the email relates to a prior relationship,  
it would be difficult to make a strong case, especially when the IETF  
is complicit in the distribution of the email-addresses.  One might  
even ask why are these email-addresses included if it would be illegal  
to respond to these addresses.


Unless the emails are deceptive in some way, CAN-SPAM does not seem to  
apply.  Perhaps the IETF may reconsider obscuring email-addresses.


-Doug

 
 
___

Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IPR/Copyright

[Andrew G. Malis]

A bit agreement with John and Scott. Let's close this up and move on.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Scott Brim  wrote:
> John, I believe you read the consensus right.  "authors obtain all of
> the rights they are willing to".
>
> Excerpts from John C Klensin on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 07:35:55PM -0400:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
>> share an impression and suggestion.
>>
>> While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
>> reopen old battles, etc.,  there is really only one issue at
>> this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to
>>
>>       * try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
>>       obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
>>       signoff from previous contributors or
>>
>>       * treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
>>       provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
>>       of the rights if they are willing to do that but
>>       otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.
>>
>> >From reading the correspondence on the list, I believe that the
>> community prefers the latter although the former has some strong
>> advocates.   I'd like to see if we can focus on those questions
>> to see if a conclusion can be reached about the principle before
>> more Internet-Drafts are written.
>>
>> I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
>> choice, then we are finished.  The Trustees would presumably
>> follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
>> existing workaround as permanent, and  we would all move on.
>>
>> IMO, "finished" would be a big win -- no more I-Ds on the
>> subject, no need for a new or renewed WG, no more cycles of
>> people with better ways to spend their IETF time  going into
>> these efforts, etc.
>>
>> Of course, YMMD.
>>      john
>>
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IPR/Copyright

[Ray Pelletier]

On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:


A bit agreement with John and Scott. Let's close this up and move on.

Cheers,
Andy


I agree with the following additional mods to the Trust License Policy  
at http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf


6. Text To Be Included in IETF Documents

c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations
If an IETF Contribution contains pre-5378 Material as to which the  
IETF Trust has not been granted, or may not have been granted, the  
necessary permissions to allow modification of such pre-5378 Material  
outside the IETF Standards Process, then the notice in clause (iii) may

s/may/must
be included by the Contributor of such IETF Contribution to limit the  
right to make modifications to such pre-5378 Material outside the IETF  
Standards Process.


And let the Trust sort it out if and when a request is made and  
approved by the community for modification of a document by a 3rd  
party outside the standards process.


Further I would add a section to the TLP regarding the registration of  
5378 licenses online only of those licenses obtained by the Trust to  
approve the transfer of a document to a 3rd party.  We don't need to  
start an online registry of thousands of authors in the rare chance  
the Trust may need the license one day.


Ray
Trustee




On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Scott Brim  wrote:

John, I believe you read the consensus right.  "authors obtain all of
the rights they are willing to".

Excerpts from John C Klensin on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 07:35:55PM -0400:

Hi.

I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
share an impression and suggestion.

While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
reopen old battles, etc.,  there is really only one issue at
this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to

  * try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
  obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
  signoff from previous contributors or

  * treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
  provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
  of the rights if they are willing to do that but
  otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.


From reading the correspondence on the list, I believe that the

community prefers the latter although the former has some strong
advocates.   I'd like to see if we can focus on those questions
to see if a conclusion can be reached about the principle before
more Internet-Drafts are written.

I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
choice, then we are finished.  The Trustees would presumably
follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
existing workaround as permanent, and  we would all move on.

IMO, "finished" would be a big win -- no more I-Ds on the
subject, no need for a new or renewed WG, no more cycles of
people with better ways to spend their IETF time  going into
these efforts, etc.

Of course, YMMD.
 john

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 76

[aziz temmar]

...@lists.iadl.org?subject=subscribe>
> >
> > RFC2369 headers are included in each list message.
> >
> > Logs show that Ole Jacobsen was added on February 28, 2009, after a post
> > to the IETF list.
> >
> > --Dean
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> >
> > > I think he added the ietf list as a whole. When I tried to
> > > unsubscribe it said I needed a password which it never sent,
> > > so I assume I am not "on" his list the strict sense.
> > >
> > > Ole
> > >
> > > Ole J. Jacobsen
> > > Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
> > > Cisco Systems
> > > Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> > > E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > > well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list 
> > > > that
> > > > has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other members as he
> > > > chooses?
> > > >
> > > > You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite. 
> > > > Someone set
> > > > up a mailing list that was subscribed to ietf@ietf.org and filtered 
> > > > some of
> > > > our more interesting personalities. Folks that subscribed to it go a 
> > > > feed
> > > > without the comments of (or replies to) those individuals. Many moved 
> > > > their
> > > > subscriptions.
> > > >
> > > > Are you asking the Trust, or the IETF leadership, to send a cease and 
> > > > desist
> > > > letter?
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing
> > > > >list, and I'm unhappy about it. I don't know what his
> > > > >current status is with regard to the ietf@ietf.org
> > > > >mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing
> > > > >this mailing list by snagging names from it and
> > > > >putting us on his mailing list without asking. I'm also
> > > > >not thrilled that the "welcome" message he sends out
> > > > >fails to clearly identify who's sending it and that
> > > > >he does not represent the IETF. This is a small problem
> > > > >but a problem nonetheless.
> > > > >
> > > > >Melinda
> > > > >___
> > > > >Ietf mailing list
> > > > >Ietf@ietf.org
> > > > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Ietf mailing list
> > > > Ietf@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Ietf mailing list
> > > Ietf@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
> > 617 344 9000 
> >
> >
> >
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> **
> This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
> privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
> are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
> **
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090324/d6bbfe3f/attachment.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:12:10 -0700
> From: SM 
> Subject: Re: IPR/Copyright
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090324165738.03158...@resistor.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> 
> At 16:35 24-03-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
> &