Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-06 Thread Stewart Bryant

Check with the lawyers, but I think that you will find that this 
is strictly a US view of patents. In every other country any public 
disclosure anywhere immediately voids the right to patent. Even 
NDA disclosure can be tricky, because an offer for sale counts 
as a disclosure.

Stewart

Doug Royer wrote:
 
 "David L. Nicol" wrote:
 
  After publishing your idea somewhere, for public critique, you have
  a year to file your patent application.  After that it becomes a
  public prior art.
 
  Am I wrong?
 
 Or if it is a little past a year, and you can show that you
 have done your best - you can also get the patent. It's not
 a hard set time limit.
 
 -Doug




Re: Privacy law

2000-04-06 Thread Martin Montenegro

Salvador Vidal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that as much conflicts that can be solved without the traditional
way: regulation + represion = burocracy + injustice, will be better for
users.
But on privacy questions we can try first to give technical solutions, i.e.
ways  to follow stamped data to oversee companies behavior and then inform
users about it automaticaly when they get in contact with these
companies,..., well I don´t know which utilities will work, but I think is
worthy to try some before being driven to legal solutions that only will be
able to reapir damages not to avoid them.

I think that we are in front of the progress ´s victory over the politics
's ideas.
See the advance of technology like a flood and the politics like a glass.
The humanity is really in front of the product of the knowledge of some
persons and is trying to save your houses of the flood with a small glass.
That bring an inevitable break of the actually concepts about the limits
and jurisdictions of the law.
Some countries(goverments) are afraid to lose the domain on commerce and 
in a future they will take acctions(any action!!) to regulate all in this
actually paradise of finances.



Martin Montenegro




MPLS and Private Network

2000-04-06 Thread David Wang
Title: MPLS and Private Network





Dear Friends,


A company consists of 2 remotely separated sites, A and B. A leased T1 line connects the networks on these 2 sites together. We generally call the company's network a private network since the connection between the 2 sites are private leased line. 

Now the service provider replace this leased T1 line with a 1.544 mbps MPLS LSP (Label Switched Path). Is this company's network still a private network? Is it still as secure as it was before ? why ? 

We know that the MPLS LSP has gone through many LSR (Label Switch Router) and has been manipulated by the service providers. But the leased T1 line has been manipulated by the service providers too. The signal may be multiplex into DS3, OC-3, OC-12, OC-48, OC-192 then de-multiplex back to OC-48, OC-12, OC-3, DS3, DS1.

Please help me if you know the answers.


Thanks
David





Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-06 Thread John Stracke

Brijesh Kumar wrote:

 Granting of patents only means that a person grated a particular patent
 was first to make "a claim" about the novelty of an idea or technique
 as far as the patent office knows on the basis of "previous claims submitted
 to it.".

At least in the US, at least sometimes, the examiners do at least some
literature search.  I remember being involved in a patent where the examiner
sent it back with an article clipped from the trade press.

--
/==\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=|
|eCal Corp.  |Among animals, it's eat or be eaten. Among   |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|people, it's define or be defined.   |
\==/






Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-06 Thread John Stracke

Masataka Ohta wrote:

 We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
 under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
 to make the servers illegal.

Mmm...that sounds like a grey area.  A company using patented tech to do
business in the US may be subject to US law even if the tech is not resident
in the US (under the same sort of theory used against Internet gambling).
Even if it's not true in the general case, a sufficiently expensive lawyer
might be able to convince the court that, since the Internet makes location
irrelevant, the location of the infringement is irrelevant.

--
/==\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=|
|eCal Corp.  |Among animals, it's eat or be eaten. Among   |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|people, it's define or be defined.   |
\==/






recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt

2000-04-06 Thread Keith Moore

I am writing to request that the RFC Editor not publish 
draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt as an RFC in its current form,
for the following reasons:

1. The document repeatedly, and misleadingly, refers to NECP as a 
standard.  I do not believe this is appropriate for a document
which is not on the IETF standards track.  It also refers to
some features as "mandatory" even though it's not clear what
it means for a non-standard to have mandatory features.


2. A primary purpose of the NECP protocol appears to be to 
facilitate the operation of so-called interception proxies.  Such 
proxies violate the Internet Protocol in several ways: 

(1) they redirect traffic to a destination other than the one 
specified in the IP header, 

(2) they impersonate other IP hosts by using those hosts' IP addresses 
as source addresses in traffic they generate,

(3) for some interception proxies, traffic which is passed on to the 
destination host, is modified in transit, and any packet-level
checksums are regenerated.

IP allows for the network to delay, drop, or duplicate IP packets,
as part of a best effort to route them to their intended destination.
But it does not allow the above practices.

This document implicitly treats such behavior as legitimate even
though it violates the primary standard on which all Internet
interoperability depends.


3. Aside from the technical implications of intercepting traffic, 
redirecting it to unintended destinations, or forging traffic from
someone else's IP address - there are also legal, social, moral
and commercial implications of doing so.

In my opinion IETF should not be lending support to such dubious
practices by publishing an RFC which implicitly endorses them,
even though the authors are employed by major research institutions 
and hardware vendors.


4. Furthermore, while any of the above practice might be deemed "morally"
acceptable in limited circumstances (such as when the interception proxy 
is being operated by the same party as the one which operates the host being 
impersonated) in general these are very dangerous.  There have been numerous 
cases where network elements employing practices similar to the above have 
been demonstrated to harm interoperability.  (e.g. there is a widely-used
SMTP firewall product which breaks SMTP extension negotiation, and a 
traffic shaping product was recently found to corrupt data in TCP streams
generated by certain kinds of hosts) 

This document contains language touting the benefits of NECP but very 
little language describing the danger of using the above techniques which 
NECP was designed to support.   Where the document does mention the 
problems, it is misleading or incomplete.  For example, the Introduction says 

   However, it [an interception proxy] can cause problems: users
   have no way to go directly to origin servers, as may be required in
   some cases (e.g., servers that authenticate using a client's source
   IP address).  The proxy has a high-level understanding of the
   application protocol; it can detect these cases and decide which
   flows should be cut through to origin servers.  

The latter sentence is a false assertion - even though the proxy has
a high level understanding of the protocol, the proxy is not generally
able to determine when cut-through is required.   For example, the
service being impersonated by the interception proxy may have uses for
the client's source address which are outside of the protocol being
intercepted and for which the proxy cannot be knowledgable.
Such uses may be both active (in that they involve attempts to establish
other traffic between the origin server and the client, or between the
client and other hosts on the network), or passive (in which the origin 
server uses the client's IP address without attempting to communicate
with it), or even deferred (in which an attempt is made to communicate
with the client's IP address at a later time).  In addition, the *user* 
may have a requirement for his client to talk directly to an origin server, 
or the content provider may have a requirement for the origin server to 
talk directly to a client, simply because they expect communications 
integrity.  By its very nature an interception proxy ignores the 
requirements of the user and/or the content provider.

The document refers to two other documents which it says further
describe the dangers of interception proxies: "Internet Web Replication 
and Caching Taxonomy" [reference 3], and "Known HTTP Proxy/Caching Problems".
Both of these appear to be works in progress, and the latter document does 
not even have a reference.  Until such documents are published, or 
at least until they are deemed ready for publication by their creators, 
it is impossible to evaluate whether they contain sufficient and
accurate information to inform readers of the NECP document about
the dangers of interception proxies.


5. While in one sense NECP is an attempt to alleviate some of the harm done 
by 

[Fwd: RMONMIB WG interim meeting announcement]

2000-04-06 Thread Andy Bierman

 


Hi,

The RMONMIB WG intends to hold an interim meeting to
work on all aspects of the new charter. This includes:
  - Application Performance Monitoring (APM)
  - Transport Performance Metrics (TPM)
  - User-Defined TopN Monitoring MIB (UsrTopN)
  - DIFFSERV Monitoring MIB (DS-MON)

Meeting Dates: 
   Monday, May 15 9am - 6pm
   Tuesday, May 16 9am - 6pm

Location:
   (Meeting Site TBD)
   San Francisco or San Jose, CA

Sponsor:
   A sponsor or co-sponsors are needed to host this meeting.
   A hotel meeting room is preferred, but corporate facilities
   will be good enough. Please contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   if you can help.




Re: A thought about patents

2000-04-06 Thread Masataka Ohta

John;

  We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
  under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
  to make the servers illegal.
 
 Mmm...that sounds like a grey area.  A company using patented tech to do
 business in the US may be subject to US law even if the tech is not resident
 in the US (under the same sort of theory used against Internet gambling).

Legislation logic around patent does not allow US patents applicable
to servers outside of US.

If US tries to change its law, companies in US may be affected by
US laws, which will drive servers and companies away from US.

 Even if it's not true in the general case, a sufficiently expensive lawyer
 might be able to convince the court that, since the Internet makes location
 irrelevant, the location of the infringement is irrelevant.

that US patents are applicable even if both servers, clients and network
inbetween are all located outside of US?

Masataka Ohta




RE: Digital Copyright Law Industrial Espionage 'Hacking'

2000-04-06 Thread Ben Davis



Note: forwarded message attached.


=
Ben Davis

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


Attn: Mr.John Roemer; Reporter for the Pacific
Standard
   and  Ms. Donna Soto; VP for CyberSettle Lawyers:

  I am addressing you anonymously, as I believe that
my
Copyrighted works Registered at Library of Congress 
other works in progress, some deriving from these and 
all original in their entire scope with what I believe
to be the sole result of my efforts over many
years-these I think have been subjected to
compromising and/or intrusive liberties from Party of
Parties Unknown, whom I suspect to be working in
concert one with the other-a small group of teens 
twenties aged 
boy 'gamers' who are most probably being assited by
older 'businessmen' and all I believe reside close
enough to me to share the same telephone junction box.
Although I repeatedly tried to appeal to the Phone Co.
and other authorites about this important matter ( the
IMPORTANCE also was in that we have had what appears
to be "FAUX PHONEMEN"... 'on the line' so to speak,
for SEVERAL YEARS!) We tried US Immigration (INS) as
these people all seem to be from the country we once 
referred to in our schools as 'Red China,' because we
have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER as to the CITIZENSHIP of these
people-we DO KNOW that these few blocks are a KNOWN
AREA where many 'safe-houses' harbor these Illegal
Alien Chinese, in fact we could say that as many as
have come up into our neighborhood from Ocean Beach,
the same amount and MORE of our Native-Born Citizens
of Chinese-American descent seem to just 'DISAPPEAR!'
We have NO IDEA what has become of the American
Chinese
or where that they've gone to? To continue-the adults
in this neighborhood speak NO ENGLISH...their kids,
ALMOST ALL are 15-year old boys, attending LOWELL HIGH
SCHOOL, in the neighborhood, San Francisco's finest,
and with a school newspaper over 100-years old, is
also
granted by the City of San Francisco a 'special
charter' which maintains a strict RACIAL status quo...
98% CHINA MAINLAND BORN (Beijing)...and almost NO
OTHER
RACIAL MAKEUP to this school! As 'exposed' by TV
reporter Emilio Guillermo on his PBS, KQED channel 9,
show, "New California Media"...a show ABOUT
minorities!
And further, these kids' parents mostly got here about
nine years ago from China, so the kids could possibly 
be CHINESE PASSPORTED ILLEGAL ALIENS! (Although
speaking real good "GI JOE" ENGLISH!..ie, Rap
Music,etc
they are nevertheless NOT CITIZENS BY BIRTHand the
PARENTS ARE MOST PROBABLY "WETBACKS"? So? Well,
this old world can change till it's blue in the face-
but the Copyright Laws which we created and upon which

for instance the Swiss laws have their basis, and the
'new media' which we hear so much about-they're ALL in
the end based on Library of Congress  US CONSTITUTION

so it is in THIS MANNER in which AMERICA can best help

the rest of the world, and cure the "Digital Divide!"
However, NO ONE WANTS TO WORK FOR FREE...especially
the
truly gifted, as they are ALWAYS 'giving away
freebies'
here and there as they go along their merry way, at
one
point or other they must draw the line at PIRACY 
INVASION of PRIVACY! I'm going to tell it "LIKE IT
IS!"
I am a US CITIZEN. My family has resided continuoulsy
in this neighborhood for over a century. We helped in
both the creation of this City, and pioneering the
West
we have NOTHING to "APOLOGISE FOR' to ANYONE! EVER!
So,
with that in mind, there are few things which honest
people anywhere can tolerate, and one is
ESPIONAGE...whether it be IDENTITY THEFT or stealing
"SECRETS" concerning one's National Security, no one
can stand such a sneak! But, it is all the more
important that we nip the IDEA of this kind of "1984" 
in the bud immediately, as the whole INTERNET itself
must be controlled by those who "OWN" it! YES, the
'Net
is INDEED still "AMERICAN OWNED  OPERATED!" The only
question is which portions are "PRIVATE" and which are
"PUBLIC." Now, to the 'touchy' part of the message,
and
please understand this in the way it was intended for
all to "grok" who are "REASONABLE!" What if ALL OF A
SUDDEN...we got a new government? What if they said;
"You can relax now, and forget all of that
'Politically
Correct' NONSENSE!"  Wouldn't you blow the old welcome
'sigh of relief?'"Wheew!" HONESTLY? Okay!

Then believe me when I tell you, that that is ABOUT
what may happen sometime soon, BECAUSE the "BUSINESS
of
the INTERNET"...CANNOT tolerate 'Computer Hackers!'
And
there is a storm gathering on the 'cyber-space
horizon'
where-in, the Clinton administration, with it's
ineffectual  antiquated Federal 'Communications'
Commission ( the guy that wrote 'The Godfather' has
the same intitials! By coincidence, that 'says' ALOT!)
and misunderstanding of the situation throughout the 
Far East, has built a house of Yellow Jackets, and
will have to either come up 

Re: recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt

2000-04-06 Thread Karl Auerbach


 I am writing to request that the RFC Editor not publish 
 draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt as an RFC in its current form,
 for the following reasons:
 
 2. A primary purpose of the NECP protocol appears to be to 
 facilitate the operation of so-called interception proxies.  Such 
 proxies violate the Internet Protocol in several ways: 
 
 3. Aside from the technical implications of intercepting traffic,
 redirecting it to unintended destinations, or forging traffic from
 someone else's IP address - there are also legal, social, moral and
 commercial implications of doing so.

You will need to be far more specific here.  I see absolutely nothing that
is not legal, is not social, or is not moral.  I do see commercial
implications, but whether those are is "good" or "bad" is not a technical
judgement.
 
 In my opinion IETF should not be lending support to such dubious
 practices by publishing an RFC which implicitly endorses them, even
 though the authors are employed by major research institutions and
 hardware vendors.

I take the contrary position.  The IETF ought to be encouraging the
documentation of *all* practices on the net.  It is far better that they
are documented where people can find useful information when they see this
kind of packet activity rather than have them known only to a few
cognescenti.

May I suggest that one treat this in its classical sense - as a Request
for Comments and that those who have technical objections or technical
enhancements publish those comments in an additional document rather than
try to suppress the original one.

Having a document trail that shows what paths and ideas have been found
wanting is nearly as important has having a trail that show what paths
have been found useful.

--karl--