On 12/17/2012 05:08 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: > On 17 December 2012 17:03, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> >> >> On 12/17/2012 04:51 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: >>>> (2) abstract: "domain owners or their agents" makes it sound >>>> like I might have to pay to monitor; be good to re-assure that >>>> no such constraint is planned. (Such re-assurance doesn't need >>>> to be in the abstract, arguably not even in the draft, but >>>> also arguably ought be somewhere.) While its none of the >>>> IETF's business who charges for what in general, in this case, >>>> where there has been ongoing negative comment on the impact of >>>> PKI business models on Internet security, I do think it'd be >>>> good for the authors of proposals to be clear how they think >>>> they're affecting such charging issues. Personally, I guess >>>> that since EFF and some academics have been able to afford to >>>> populate large databases of TLS server certs, this shouldn't >>>> become a huge barrier, but it could in principle impose new >>>> subscription costs or constraints on TLS servers or even >>>> clients and that might not be a good plan. >>> >>> Well, a log isn't much use unless it is public - but I don't really >>> know how to say much about who charges for what. We can state our >>> intent to run free services, but presumably not in an RFC. So ... I >>> don't really know how to address this. >> >> Yeah that's fair I guess. Maybe if it said that the intent >> of the RFC is that logs be public & open and SHOULD NOT require >> subscriptions or authentication for basic operation? > > Surely we can't make that kind of thing normative?
I guess it you can try say anything:-) I wonder what DNS RFCs say or maybe we all just take it for granted. > Perhaps an indirect route would be to make a requirement on > replication of data, e.g "logs MUST NOT impose any conditions on > copying of their data", which would have a GPL-like effect of driving > the price to zero for public logs? In any case this seems like a > sensible thing to require! Something down that road should be good. Might need some inventive language though. S. > >> >> S. >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> therightkey mailing list >>> therightkey@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > therightkey mailing list > therightkey@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey > > _______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list therightkey@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
