I have serious concerns with doing ANYTHING with the DNSBL entity
because of the damage that it may do to our sponsors...
The IETF operates Standards not third party services, and so somehow
this seems inappropriate.
Todd Glassey
Keith Moore wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
The working group
Keith Moore wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008, Keith Moore wrote:
It is worth repeating that just because the notion of a reputation
service has value, and such services are widely used, does not imply
that using IP addresses as identifiers or the DNS protocol as a means of
tell they dont.
Todd Glassey
Matthias Leisi wrote:
TS Glassey schrieb:
4. effects of DNS caching. if a host is removed from a blacklist it
should arguably be removed from all caches instantly, but DNS isn't
designed to facilitate that.
The use of the term SHOULD here has legal
Yeah - there is a flaw in the logic. The issue is really tricky with
Standard's Document's who's precursor document's are all done under
different copyright and license agreement's as would be the case for a
process in the IETF which took several years to start and complete with all
the changes
- Original Message -
From: Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Michael Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
On Oct 28, 2008, at 8:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Andrew G. Malis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
Todd,
I see your point
- Original Message -
From: Andrew G. Malis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion
ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
Todd,
I generally agree
Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 1.4B
for the kernel itself, the IETF can no longer hide its head in the sand
claiming that its workproduct has no specific value. This also means that
ANY AND ALL contributions to the IETF no matter when they happened now
Ooops - forgot the link too the story on the valuation of the LINUX Kernel.
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/smb/?p=107nr=dye
- Original Message -
From: TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:27 AM
Subject
it is unrealistic to just claim that people have to
check the IPR DB and that they all know this. That simply is not true in
most cases IMHO.
---
Personal Disclaimers Apply
TS Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman
I disagree. The UTF8 Encoding scheme is universally deployed already and
until the ISO walks away from it we should stick with it.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: I Love Vowels [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Proposal for
Scott
The 60 day difference can be used by anyone concerned to file protests over
IP issues and this is VERY important since when the iParadigm matter comes
back before the US Appellate Court (I bet Jorge is quaking already), it will
set standards which will also apply directly to the IETF and
- Original Message -
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Olaf Kolkman [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: RFC 2026
systems operated in the public interest.
Todd
---
Personal Disclaimers Apply
TS Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
to the IETF Trust
for its development as an IETF Standard or Process.
Personal Disclaimers Apply
TS Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Original Message -
From: SM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:56 PM
Subject: The RFC Editor and the Internet Standards Process
Hello,
A proposal was posted at
http://www.iab.org/documents/resources/RFC-Editor-Model.html
FYI - the placing of someone on disciplinary isolation status from a working
group formally requires a notice when the posting privileges are restored.
Since the WG chair is the responsible party for that WG it would fall to
them. The failing to do so would constitute an intentional denial of
of the problem.
That said a simple hyperlink on the WG Pages to those IPR Notices which
would impact them, seems to be an easy fix here.
---
Personal Disclaimers Apply
TS Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IPR's are forever - they can be updated but they will exist forever. Once
filed the IPR is the property of the IETF and is published with its works
under the same copyright rules too right?
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ted Hardie
IP Folks
The fact that there is a IPR process means that there is now an obligation
to use it, and so we now need to factor in what it was intended for.
To meet this new hurdle my suggestion is that the IP Submission Process now
also has a set of statement's with checkboxes added which say
in the W3C as well meaning lots of good
things regarding that patent and its infringers.
---
Personal Disclaimers Apply
TS Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Original Message -
From: TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Contreras, Jorge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 8:09 AM
Subject: Suspension Processes require Notice when a Suspension is Lifted.
Folks -
when
In fact many ISP's only allow their clients to update the forward maps since
they don't want to set those blocks of addresses into SWIPPED mode.
T.
- Original Message -
From: Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dave
Yep... and its coming too.
And Phillip - you know I respect you right and your ability, your knowledge
if IP law and all that... you are brilliant - but in this matter - I
disagree with you. :-).
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TS Glassey
I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be criminallyprosecutable
in nature...Uh sure Phil... but that doesn't change anything.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
To: TS Glassey ; IETF Discussion
Cc: Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, June 02
I brought this up a number of times and Harald's solution was to ban me from
the list. Something that under the US CFAA is prosecutable... His claim was
that I failed to show him the money - that special case which establishes
that as a standard.
OK Harald - the case you want to see is called
I think there is a bigger issue with encumbering the people of the US for
paying for creating an indexing system for the IETF to prevent the
Chair/Trust from doing its job.
I suggest that this is another stupid idea from the Trust to keep them from
actually answering the question as to what
Now that there are multiple time services WG's its becoming very clear that
the driving processes for product IP transit systems which move time is now
central to the IETF's operations.
It if for that reason that I am suggesting that all of the Time Centric
Protocols be lumped together into a
- Original Message -
From: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists
- Original Message -
From: Eliot Lear [EMAIL
No Ray - the Trust member's need to NOT have any other active IESG/IETF or
IAB relationship's while they sit on the Trust since there would be
clear-cut violation's of conflict and that is that.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Fred Baker
Dean -
- Original Message -
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:28 PM
Subject: RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Speaking as president of the LPF; not a lawyer but a
Brian -
Section 3.17 - is a good clarity tool for better clarifying the scope of
these processes. But that same need for clarity also applies to 3.18 -
Section 3.18 - the Retention and Records Keeping section needs considerable
rewording. There are three key issues to address in the
Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz experimental standardPhillip -
- Original Message -
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
To: TS Glassey ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Theodore Tso
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: Hallam-Baker's First Law
PROTECTED]
To: TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Richard Wilbur [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Vote on tls-authz??? (fwd)
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, TS Glassey wrote:
So why is everyone so uptight??? The Submarine Patent will cause
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz experimental standard
Theodore Tso wrote:
Actually, to be fair, I don't think
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
What are the retention requirements here Ray and what are the availability
requirements per the Stored Communications Act is the US and has this
transition ever been scoped out against these constraints? or is it the
IETF's intent to ignore US Law again?
Todd Glassey
- Original Message
Mr. Wilbur,
- Original Message -
From: Richard Wilbur [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: TLS-authz experimental standard
To those considering the TLS-authz proposal:
The patent shenanigans of RedPhone Security
the protection of a patent IMHO. That means that the IETF only needs
to mandate formal IP disclosures are mandatory and that there are
repercussion's for their not being obeyed.
Snicker...
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TS Glassey [EMAIL
Christian in respinse to your answer below,
0)Why does the IETF care whether its IP is used?
It operates a standard's process not a commercial eneity who's existence is
based on licensing, so if the IETF has this concern that impacts its
impartial status as an open and fair entity I
how that is eh?
Todd Glassey
Regards,
Jordi
De: Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:10:11 -0500
Para: TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: Defining the term
Ted called me on that I was using a Term of Art which has not been formally
defined here in the IETF so lets define the term SPONSOR (Sponsor,
SPONSOR) for use in the IETF's IP Processes.
- Original Message -
From: Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc
I would like to propose expanding the types of document's we can file
Contribution's in to the IETF so these now include OpenOffice Document
Formats. They can interoperate with Microsoft office and Symphony Document's
as well so they are pretty much available to everyone globally.
The ability
No Ted...
- Original Message -
From: Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Defining the term SPONSOR for the IETF
On Sat, Dec 22
Folks,
Since NoteWell contains a key part of any vetting process or documents key
communications with the IETF, I believe a modification of the existing
NoteWell specification is needed to 'force a IETF Staff Member or WG Chair'
to response to a READ REQUEST tagged email appropriately and not
Question for the two lists -
Since many of the IETF's operations are physically located in the US those
laws constrain the operations of the IETF pretty much... So let me ask this,
Since the new Digital Evidence requirements in the US now mandate a much
stronger set of management processes,
46 matches
Mail list logo
