Subject: Re: SSH-> Secure Shell renaming is *not* official.

From: Tatu Ylonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 00:01:16 +0200

> These drafts contain a change in document title (replacing "SSH" with
> "Secure Shell" and/or "Secure Shell Remote Login Protocol").
>
> I was not notified or consulted in advance of these title changes and
> they appear to have been made unilaterally by the document author(s)
> and are not the result of working group consensus.

I went ahead and made the editorial changes unilaterally in view of
the recent discussions regarding our trademark claims, particularly
since the IETF declared the trademark debate "out of scope" of the
working group.  I was trying to clarify the working drafts and avoid
further problems, because people have been saying that the trademark
section in the previous drafts was not acceptable.

There were no changes to the bits on the wire (except in the file
transfer protocol, and those are unrelated to the trademark issue).

Here is a summary of the changes in the drafts:

  - clarification in X11 forwarding ("e.g. MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1")

  - changed GNU ZLIB -> ZLIB

  - several changes in file transfer protocol, as requested by the
    working group

  - cleaned up use of terms "SSH" and "Secure Shell" to conform to the
    trademark usage guidelines and SSH's policy statement (we are
    contributing the "Secure Shell" name to the public domain so that
    it can be used to identify the Secure Shell protocol and any
    Secure Shell implementation, but "ssh" is our brand name and
    trademark, and it can only be used under a license from us and
    such use must conform to our trademark guidelines; see www.ssh.com
    for more information).  This change avoids the trademark issue
    for the working group entirely.

  - changed the "Trademark issues" paragraph to be just a trademark
    notice (noting the fact that "ssh" is a registered trademark); a
    separate notice will be posted on the IETF Intellectual Property
    Rights Notices page.

Let's discuss this further in the working group meeting in Minneapolis.

Note also that we have decided to abandon our trademark application
for the name "Secure Shell" and dedicate it to public use.  We
understand that the phrase Secure Shell is well known withing the
community to describe the secure remote login protocol that I
originally developed.

    Tatu

--
SSH Communications Security           http://www.ssh.com/
SSH IPSEC Toolkit                     http://www.ipsec.com/
SSH Secure Shell                      http://www.ssh.com/ssh

---

From: Thor Simon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:26:05 -0500

> I went ahead and made the editorial changes unilaterally in view of

But you are not the working group chair, and nobody asked about
consensus on the working group mailing list, and it certainly appears to
me that there is, in fact, no consensus that that change should be made.

In other words, as you have repeatedly done throughout this present
unpleasantness, you once again publically misrepresented your authority, 
your actions, and the views and actions of others.

>     for the working group entirely.

There is no consensus whatsoever in the working group that the protocol
or drafts should be renamed, as you well know since you are on the same
mailing list the rest of the WG members are on; certainly you know full
well that the subject of consensus on this issue wasn't even discussed,
much less decided upon.

Once more, you publically misrepresent the nature and extent of your
trademark claims to "ssh".  The plain fact is that you do _not_ have a
trademark on "ssh"; you have a trademark on one particular graphical
representation of the letters "ssh", and you did not even seek a trademark
on the plain-text word "ssh", whether upper or lower-case, as your own
attorney confirmed in his response to the first correspondence from the
trademark examiner in your U.S. trademark file (I will be happy to provide
copies of this file to anyone who wants it).

Since you do not have an actual trademark on "ssh" as plain text, and
your trademark on "ssh" rendered in a particular way is irrelevant to
the work of the working group, the name of the protocol, or the names
of the drafts, I see no reason (and I suspect that few others do) that
we should rename anything at this time.  If you _did_ own such a mark, 
more working group members might be in favor of renaming the protocol 
as a means of sidestepping your unethical behaviour but as it stands, 
I doubt that we will reach consensus on rewarding your failed attempt 
at blackmail!

>     separate notice will be posted on the IETF Intellectual Property

A "trademark notice" is not appropriate in the documents either; see
RFC 2026.  Furthermore, at this point you know full well that your
rights in this area are not what you would like to be able to publically
represent them to be; I find it the very epitome of highanded arrogance
that you have represented that you were authorized to submit new drafts
of the working-group's documents without consensus, when that's plainly
false, so that you could use those new drafts to have the IETF further your 
own agenda of publically misrepresenting the extent of your trademark rights.

> community to describe the secure remote login protocol that I

How nice.  I suspect that at this point you are aware that I instructed
my counsel several weeks ago to oppose the issuance of that mark on the 
grounds that the name in question is generic; I mention this only lest 
anyone think that you had "decided" to do anything altruistic rather than 
merely cynically attempt to create the appearance that you had done so.

Thor

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 18:05:11 -0500

It is *NOT* your prerogative to unilaterally rename the IETF protocol
from SSH to "Secure Shell".

> I went ahead and made the editorial changes unilaterally 

You appear to have missed my previous statement:

I am reluctant to initiate renaming unless I see SMOOTH CONSENSUS.

Based on the feedback I've been getting in private mail, we have
nothing vaguely resembling consensus.

> in view of the recent discussions regarding our trademark claims,
> particularly since the IETF declared the trademark debate "out of
> scope" of the working group.

Discussions of the validity (or not) of the trademark are out of
scope.  (It's fair to say that different lawyers have different
opinions at the moment).

HOWEVER, discussions of whether or not the protocol needs to be
renamed are most certainly in scope.  If we resolve that issue in
favor of renaming, it is up to the WORKING GROUP to pick the new name,
since it is the WORKING GROUP which has change control over the
protocol.

						- Bill

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 20:54:29 -0500

>>>>> "Tatu" == Tatu Ylonen <[email-masked]> writes:
    Tatu>   - cleaned up use of terms "SSH" and "Secure Shell" to conform to the
    Tatu>     trademark usage guidelines and SSH's policy statement (we are
    Tatu>     contributing the "Secure Shell" name to the public domain so that
    Tatu>     it can be used to identify the Secure Shell protocol and any

  So, we should be changing:

% grep 22 /etc/services
ssh		22/tcp		# Secure Shell

  to:

secsh		22/tcp		# Secure Shell

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:54:38 +0200 (EET)

> secsh		22/tcp		# Secure Shell

I think

secure-shell	22/tcp		# Secure Shell

would be more correct, if we decide to change the protocol name to
Secure Shell.

If we decide to change it to something else then we change the port
number name to something else. I don't really think this change is
going to affect anybody. I think all implementations of the protocol
use hard coded port 22 (or the port number is given in the config
file), they do not normally use getservbyname, so no matter what we
put to the /etc/services the programs still work.
-- 
[email-masked]                               Work : +358 303 9870
SSH Communications Security                  http://www.ssh.fi/
SSH IPSEC Toolkit                            http://www.ssh.fi/ipsec/

---

From: [email-masked] (Niels M�ller)
Date: 07 Mar 2001 16:51:26 +0100

Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]> writes:

> I think all implementations of the protocol use hard coded port 22
> (or the port number is given in the config file), they do not
> normally use getservbyname, so no matter what we put to the
> /etc/services the programs still work.

For the record, my implementation uses getservbyname and falls back to
22 if the name "ssh" isn't found.

/Niels

---

From: "Marcus Leech" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 09:58:05 -0500

> section in the previous drafts was not acceptable.
Tatu, it is inappropriate for you to act on any of this without the consensus
  of the working group.  Bill Sommerfeld was entirely justified in objecting
  to this action.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Leech                             Mail:   Dept 8M70, MS 012, FITZ
Advisor                                  Phone: (ESN) 393-9145  +1 613 763 9145
Security Architecture and Planning       Fax:   (ESN) 393-9435  +1 613 763 9435
Nortel Networks                          [email-masked]
-----------------Expressed opinions are my own, not my employer's------

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 15:54:08 +0200 (EET)

>   of the working group.  Bill Sommerfeld was entirely justified in objecting

I think changing the document title should be in the hands of the
document editor. Of course WG might be against the renaming and ask
the editor to change it back or to something else. In this case Tatu
renamed the documents to match the official working group name.

Comment about IETF way of selecting names of draft earlier on the
ietf-ssh list from the RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Renaming SSH-the-standard
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:36:47 -0500
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
...
        Names of drafts in MANY working groups are not the same as
the official name of the WG.  In practice, names of drafts
are generally chosen by the editors of those drafts, not 
as an official choice by the WG or IETF.  Perhaps you're new
to our wacky ways of doing things in the IETF ?
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There has been other cases where there has been no discussion on the
ietf mailing list before renaming the protocol (for example
ISAKMP/Oakley resolution protocol was renamed to IKE without any
previous discussion on the ipsec-list. There might have been some
discussion about renaming in the IETF meeting or in the vpn-backoff,
but no discussion on the list). 

Bill Sommerfeld said in his email:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Your working group chair is GRUMPY.
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
...
 - At the present time, based both on comments to the mailing list and
to me in private I do not see consensus either for or against renaming
the working group and protocol.

 - I am reluctant to initiate renaming unless I see SMOOTH CONSENSUS.
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Counting from the ietf-ssh list there hasn't been single clear "no to
renaming" before new drafts came out. Before Sommerfeld's email there
had been at least two yes on the list (one suggesting it, in the first
place, and another saying that, yes we can rename), so I assume there
has been some private emails to Sommerfeld against the renaming based
on his wording on the email.

After that the situation on the ietf-list didn't change at all, there
was just some discussion about names (good or bad) but no more yes or
no votes.

When Tatu called me on the Friday afternoon and asked would it be ok
to submit the new version of drafts, that also had been renamed, or
not to submit them at all (the deadline was in few hours), I didn't
see any reason why not submit. There hadn't been single person saying
"No" on the ietf-ssh list, thus I think we had consensus, or most
people simply dont care. If there has been private discussion
somewhere, I don't know about it.

Here is my summary of the renameing discussion between the first
email suggesting it (Feb 16 15:07:20) and when the draft announcements 
came out (Mar 6 16:27:40).

Yes to rename:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
	Suggested renaming in the ietf-ssh list

"denis bider" <[email-masked]>
	"We can rename the standard, and from the naming point of view,
	 it would make sense to do so - "secure shell" doesn't resemble
	 what the protocol does."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No to renaming
(none)

No clear yes or no to renaming:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason R Thorpe <[email-masked]>
	Discussion about names, no clear yes or no. 

RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
	Said that secure shell name is ok, but didn't say anything
	about ssh name.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After that drafts came out there has been three more "No" emails to
the list from Bill Sommerfeld, Thor Simon and Jason Thorpe.
-- 
[email-masked]                               Work : +358 303 9870
SSH Communications Security                  http://www.ssh.fi/
SSH IPSEC Toolkit                            http://www.ssh.fi/ipsec/

---

From: Thor Simon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:44:06 -0500

> somewhere, I don't know about it.

That's nice, but I think that it is rather highly disingenuous.
The plain fact is that Tatu suggested that the protocol and drafts 
*must* be renamed, and that a long, painful discussion of the falsity of 
that claim ensued both on and off the WG mailing list.  How could you 
possibly think, given that very nasty and public situation involving, 
primarily, working group members, not to mention the extension of the 
chaos onto the WG mailing list, that there was anything even approaching 
consensus?

I find it interesting that the only person supporting Tatu's actions here
is one of his employees.  I note that another of Tatu's employees recently
applied related, sudden, unilateral changes to the SSH FAQ.

Thor

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:15:06 +0200 (EET)

> that claim ensued both on and off the WG mailing list.  How could you 

Can you give me a reference to that email of Tatu about that to the
ietf-ssh list? At least I cannot find it from my ietf-ssh archive. It
might of course be that mailing list at clinet managed to destroy that 
mail, and didn't send it to me. I cannot also find this long painful
discussion about the protocol renaming on the list.

I have seen Tatu's email about the OpenSSH and requesting them to
change the name, that working group and protocol name discussion came
after that and I haven't seen Tatu commenting that on the ietf-ssh
list.

> applied related, sudden, unilateral changes to the SSH FAQ.

I am also one of the authors of the draft, and I was involved
in the case by saying Tatu that "yes, I think it is OK to rename". 
-- 
[email-masked]                               Work : +358 303 9870
SSH Communications Security                  http://www.ssh.fi/
SSH IPSEC Toolkit                            http://www.ssh.fi/ipsec/

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:51:32 -0500

Tero,

In the IETF, it is the *working group chair* who is the judge of
whether or not consensus exists.  Tatu should have called me, and I
would have told him:

 - I was uncertain of consensus
 - until consensus was clear it would be inappropriate to change
anything.

Moreover, I informed Tatu of exactly how I wanted to handle any
potential renaming on several occasions.

In a private message I sent on 13 Feb 2001 to Tatu, I stated:

   The appropriate thing to do is for me to announce [this request for
   renaming] to the working group, and have the WG pick a new name for
   itself.
  
   I'll send message to the WG about this when I get some spare cycles.

In another message I sent on 16 Feb 2001 to Tatu, I stated:

   The secure shell working group really needs to come to consensus on
   whether or not renaming is necessary before we can discuss alternate
   names.

This should have made it sufficiently clear that he should have
checked with me before taking any action.

> came out (Mar 6 16:27:40).

Given that the working group mailing list had been flaky until I moved
it to its new home, judging by what made it through to the list and/or
ended up in the archives is risky at best.

					- Bill

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:02:17 -0500

At 08:54 08/03/01, Tero Kivinen wrote:

>document editor. 

        Understood, but Bill is WG Chair.  Moreover, the applicable
Security AD has already spoken in favour of Bill's comments,
so there can be no question that my earlier misunderstanding 
was wrong and that Bill's assertion is correct.

        Tatu could have avoided this entire mess by handling
matters in a more clear and more civilised manner much earlier
on.  Its a pity he didn't do so, but we are where we are.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 14:29:24 -0500

> ietf-ssh list? 

Based on at least one reply to Tatu's message, from Matthiew Weigel,
on Friday 16 Feb 2001, I believe it made it at least one of the lists
on the CC: line (but not ietf-ssh).

To: Tatu Ylonen <[email-masked]>
cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ssh(R) trademark issues: comments and proposal 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:51:06 +0200."
             <[email-masked]> 
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:21:05 -0500
From: Matthew Weigel <[email-masked]>

I sent a copy to Tero and Thor.

					- Bill

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:41:05 -0500

> was wrong and that Bill's assertion is correct.

Ran,

Having reviewed your message, Tero clearly took your comment (about
title choice) out of context.

The initial choice of a document title or protocol name is indeed
normally up to the document's original author, and I believe that
that's what you were referring to in the message Tero summarized.

However, as a working group forms a consensus around a document, the
role of the wordsmith gradually changes from author to editor, and the
amount of discretion available to the wordsmith decreases
dramatically, particularly once a document gets to the Last Call
stage.

					- Bill