RE: [isdf] RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)
Don't forget that the web-of-trust of OpenPGP is really a citizen approach and you don't have to rely on a specific entity. ISOC should organize more keysigning party ;-) (ok some at IETF) adulau On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Franck Martin wrote: This is called PGP and S/MIME. Both are valid IETF RFC. From an industry point of view, S/MIME seems to be the one that will survive in the long run, because it is implemented in nearly all mail clients and follows the certificates used in SSL/TLS which is widely adopted (IPSec to name only one). However, none of them is widely implemented for e-mail purposes because of problems to build a global PKI (in short). I still haven't found a company that will give/sell me a certificate that allows me to sign my organisational e-mails certificates. ISOC is working on it... Cheers. -Original Message- From: Gary Lawrence Murphy [mailto:garym;canada.com] Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 11:19 To: Franck Martin Cc: 'TOMSON ERIC'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: [isdf] RE: Palladium (TCP/MS) Isn't that PGP? ___ Isdf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isdf -- --Alexandre Dulaunoy -- http://www.foo.be/ -- http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x44E6CBCD People who fight may lose.People who do not fight have already lost. Bertolt Brecht
Re: RFC3271 and independance of cyberspace
On Wed, 1 May 2002, vint cerf wrote: At 03:00 PM 5/1/2002 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. current copyright law says that from the moment of creation all rights lie with the creator of the intellectual property. That is, you don't have to register for the material to be copyrighted. You have to take a conscious action under present law to make something public domain. (You have to make a declaration that it is public domain). That may not be what you have in mind, of course, but it is the present state of affairs in the US and other countries subscribing to the Berne Convention on Copyright. The initial Berne convention is enough. The worry is more regarding the extension made like by WIPO/OMPI. (like the Article 11) This type of extension generates DMCA, EUCD and all the horror used by the editor and not the author itself. For example, the GNU General Public License is using the classical copyright from the Berne convention. The use is smart and protect the four freedoms of Free Software concept. But now extension is a threat to these freedoms... (you know, equilibrium.) I'm sure, the idea/intention behind the RFC (...global legal framework..) is good but I'm worry of the use that could be done by international organisation like WIPO (funded by big companies) to use that to extend the arsenal of law to stop the natural extension of the cyberspace. So, on the pratical side, do you see that as an issue or not ? If yes, do you plan to make a new version ? and obsolete the other one. Thanks a lot for your excellent work. Cheers, Alexandre Dulaunoy http://www.ael.be/
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
[OF] ietf Re: in memoriam
Dear, Could the IETF mailing-list be moderated for off-topics comments ? The board of trustee of the ISOC is international. http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/board.shtml The joining of the IETF is open and major standard are coming from the IETF and are created by people all over the world. Limiting network by boundaries is like limiting software by patents. Your opinion is your opinion, but please stop to use IETF as a media. Alex On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Jim Fleming wrote: - Original Message - From: TOMSON ERIC [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.Stop advertising America ; the Internet has not been limited to American users for years now (*). In my opinion, the reverse is the case. I believe that it is time for non-U.S. citizens to be identified as such on America's Internet and they should not be allowed to freely use America's Internet to market their protocols and other developments without the proper customs clearances and work visas. Americans have let their guard down, they have been far too polite. It is time to close the network borders and make them as secure as the physical borders. The Next Generation Internet will be built in America, by Americans, for Americans. You are welcome to attempt to fly here and clear immigrations to see what it looks like. You are also welcome to continue to play with the toy IPv4 technology. The toy IPv4 Internet is a sewer. IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer. IPv16 is the high-ground ...here are some links... Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com Mars 128n 128e http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
