Subject: RE: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 77

From: aziz temmar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:39:21 +0100

merde
 
> From: [email-masked]
> Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 77
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:37:35 -0700
> 
> Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
> [email-masked]
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [email-masked]
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [email-masked]
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
> 1. Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest" (Douglas Otis)
> 2. Re: IPR/Copyright (Andrew G. Malis)
> 3. Re: IPR/Copyright (Ray Pelletier)
> 4. RE: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 76 (aziz temmar)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:34:10 -0700
> From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: 'IETF Discussion Mailing List' <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> 
> 
> On Mar 23, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> >> It's happened to me twice, with two different lists of his. I've 
> >> complained to him, but to no avail. I wonder if the CAN SPAM act 
> >> applies.
> >
> > IANAL but my impression is that it definitely does apply, possibly 
> > multiply and possibly even with sanctions. As noted, this is a 
> > relatively tricky topic, but I am still pretty sure he goes far 
> > beyond the limits it defines.
> 
> http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C103.txt
> 
> The term "commercial electronic mail message" means any electronic 
> mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial 
> advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service 
> (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial 
> purpose). The term "commercial electronic mail message" does not 
> include a transactional or relationship message.
> 
> Transactional or relationships include:
> a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable ongoing 
> commercial relationship involving the ongoing purchase or use by the 
> recipient of products or services offered by the sender; (iv) to 
> provide information directly related to an employment relationship or 
> related benefit plan in which the recipient is currently involved, 
> participating, or enrolled;
> ....
> where:
> It is the sense of Congress that -
> (1) Spam has become the method of choice for those who distribute 
> pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and introduce viruses, 
> worms, and Trojan horses into personal and business computer systems; 
> and
> (2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law enforcement 
> tools to investigate and prosecute those who send bulk commercial e- 
> mail to facilitate the commission of Federal crimes, including the 
> tools contained in chapters 47 and 63 of title 18 (relating to fraud 
> and false statements); chapter 71 of title 18 (relating to obscenity); 
> chapter 110 of title 18 (relating to the sexual exploitation of 
> children); and chapter 95 of title 18 (relating to racketeering), as 
> appropriate.
> 
> CAN-SPAM also limits legal standing to network providers and law 
> enforcement.
> 
> Since the IETF distributes email-addresses of subscribers, rather than 
> obscuring them, when email-addresses are obtained from received 
> messages that relate to some ongoing issue, this would not be 
> harvesting. It is not uncommon to even see emails that ask why you 
> unsubscribed. As long as the email relates to a prior relationship, 
> it would be difficult to make a strong case, especially when the IETF 
> is complicit in the distribution of the email-addresses. One might 
> even ask why are these email-addresses included if it would be illegal 
> to respond to these addresses.
> 
> Unless the emails are deceptive in some way, CAN-SPAM does not seem to 
> apply. Perhaps the IETF may reconsider obscuring email-addresses.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:53:33 -0700
> From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: IPR/Copyright
> To: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Message-ID:
> <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> A bit agreement with John and Scott. Let's close this up and move on.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Scott Brim <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > John, I believe you read the consensus right. ?"authors obtain all of
> > the rights they are willing to".
> >
> > Excerpts from John C Klensin on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 07:35:55PM -0400:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
> >> share an impression and suggestion.
> >>
> >> While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
> >> reopen old battles, etc., ?there is really only one issue at
> >> this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to
> >>
> >> ? ? ? * try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
> >> ? ? ? obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
> >> ? ? ? signoff from previous contributors or
> >>
> >> ? ? ? * treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
> >> ? ? ? provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
> >> ? ? ? of the rights if they are willing to do that but
> >> ? ? ? otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.
> >>
> >> >From reading the correspondence on the list, I believe that the
> >> community prefers the latter although the former has some strong
> >> advocates. ? I'd like to see if we can focus on those questions
> >> to see if a conclusion can be reached about the principle before
> >> more Internet-Drafts are written.
> >>
> >> I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
> >> choice, then we are finished. ?The Trustees would presumably
> >> follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
> >> existing workaround as permanent, and ?we would all move on.
> >>
> >> IMO, "finished" would be a big win -- no more I-Ds on the
> >> subject, no need for a new or renewed WG, no more cycles of
> >> people with better ways to spend their IETF time ?going into
> >> these efforts, etc.
> >>
> >> Of course, YMMD.
> >> ? ? ?john
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ietf mailing list
> >> [email-masked]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:09:00 -0400
> From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: IPR/Copyright
> To: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> 
> 
> On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> 
> > A bit agreement with John and Scott. Let's close this up and move on.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> 
> I agree with the following additional mods to the Trust License Policy 
> at http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf
> 
> 6. Text To Be Included in IETF Documents
> 
> c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations
> If an IETF Contribution contains pre-5378 Material as to which the 
> IETF Trust has not been granted, or may not have been granted, the 
> necessary permissions to allow modification of such pre-5378 Material 
> outside the IETF Standards Process, then the notice in clause (iii) may
> s/may/must
> be included by the Contributor of such IETF Contribution to limit the 
> right to make modifications to such pre-5378 Material outside the IETF 
> Standards Process.
> 
> And let the Trust sort it out if and when a request is made and 
> approved by the community for modification of a document by a 3rd 
> party outside the standards process.
> 
> Further I would add a section to the TLP regarding the registration of 
> 5378 licenses online only of those licenses obtained by the Trust to 
> approve the transfer of a document to a 3rd party. We don't need to 
> start an online registry of thousands of authors in the rare chance 
> the Trust may need the license one day.
> 
> Ray
> Trustee
> 
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Scott Brim <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >> John, I believe you read the consensus right. "authors obtain all of
> >> the rights they are willing to".
> >>
> >> Excerpts from John C Klensin on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 07:35:55PM -0400:
> >>> Hi.
> >>>
> >>> I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
> >>> share an impression and suggestion.
> >>>
> >>> While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
> >>> reopen old battles, etc., there is really only one issue at
> >>> this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to
> >>>
> >>> * try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
> >>> obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
> >>> signoff from previous contributors or
> >>>
> >>> * treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
> >>> provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
> >>> of the rights if they are willing to do that but
> >>> otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.
> >>>
> >>>> From reading the correspondence on the list, I believe that the
> >>> community prefers the latter although the former has some strong
> >>> advocates. I'd like to see if we can focus on those questions
> >>> to see if a conclusion can be reached about the principle before
> >>> more Internet-Drafts are written.
> >>>
> >>> I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
> >>> choice, then we are finished. The Trustees would presumably
> >>> follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
> >>> existing workaround as permanent, and we would all move on.
> >>>
> >>> IMO, "finished" would be a big win -- no more I-Ds on the
> >>> subject, no need for a new or renewed WG, no more cycles of
> >>> people with better ways to spend their IETF time going into
> >>> these efforts, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, YMMD.
> >>> john
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ietf mailing list
> >>> [email-masked]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ietf mailing list
> >> [email-masked]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:38:22 +0100
> From: aziz temmar <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 76
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> arreter de m'envoyer vos pub non seleument je ne comprend pas l'anglais et jai pas besoin merci 
> 
> > From: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 76
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:05:32 -0700
> > 
> > Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
> > [email-masked]
> > 
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > [email-masked]
> > 
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > [email-masked]
> > 
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
> > 
> > 
> > Today's Topics:
> > 
> > 1. Proposal RE: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
> > (Hallam-Baker, Phillip)
> > 2. Re: IPR/Copyright (SM)
> > 3. request for community assistance regarding TICTOC
> > requirements (Yaakov Stein)
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:51:18 -0700
> > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Proposal RE: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
> > To: "Von Wootten, Karl" <[email-masked]>, "Ole
> > Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>, "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: [email-masked], Fred Baker <[email-masked]>, IETF
> > Discussion Mailing List <[email-masked]>
> > Message-ID:
> > <[email-masked]>
> > 
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > 
> > I suggest that all mail that is cross posted to Mr Andreson IETF-Honest or whatever other spam list Mr Spammer decides to create be blocked from all IETF lists.
> > 
> > That way any IETF-er who feeds the troll will not anoy the rest. And any IETF-er who blacklists Mr Spammer and his spam lists will have an Anderson-free experience.
> > 
> > Since Mr Spammer's objective here is to cause the spillover into the IETF list, it is my expectation that he will cease this particular tactic.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > From: [email-masked] on behalf of Von Wootten, Karl
> > Sent: Tue 3/24/2009 7:29 PM
> > To: 'Ole Jacobsen'; Dean Anderson
> > Cc: [email-masked]; Fred Baker; 'IETF Discussion Mailing List'
> > Subject: RE: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dean,
> > I feel that this issue has gone on Long enough It seems to me that by not allowing people to opt out and by unsolicited subscriptions you are only damaging your own reputation. I read what is posted to the lists I subscribe to so that I can do my job better. Not to waste time with these silly flame wars. Can we please put an end to this?
> > 
> > Karl von Wootten
> > System Engineer Infrastructure Services
> > NSW Department of Education and Training
> > Ph: 02 84254515
> > Mob: 0406 996 300
> > Fax: 02 9942 9638
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ole Jacobsen
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2009 9:41 AM
> > To: Dean Anderson
> > Cc: [email-masked]; Fred Baker; 'IETF Discussion Mailing List'
> > Subject: Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
> > 
> > Dean,
> > 
> > The web interface is broken. I don't have the initial password and it
> > won't send me a new one.
> > 
> > Please cease and desist this nonsense and unsubscribe me promptly, I
> > never asked to be on your list, nor did anyone else that you added.
> > 
> > You're a spammer, plain and simple.
> > 
> > Ole
> > 
> > Ole J. Jacobsen
> > Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
> > Cisco Systems
> > Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> > E-mail: [email-masked] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > 
> > > The password was sent in the subscription mail. The mailing list
> > > manager is GNU mailman, which is the same software many of the IETF
> > > lists uses, including [email-masked]. List management is the same, and
> > > the welcome message includes the password. In addition, mailman provides
> > > a web interface, which can be found at:
> > >
> > > List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.iadl.org/mailman/options/ietf-honest>,
> > > <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > List-Archive: <http://lists.iadl.org/pipermail/ietf-honest>
> > > List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > > List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
> > > List-Subscribe: <http://lists.iadl.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-honest>,
> > > <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
> > >
> > > RFC2369 headers are included in each list message.
> > >
> > > Logs show that Ole Jacobsen was added on February 28, 2009, after a post
> > > to the IETF list.
> > >
> > > --Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think he added the ietf list as a whole. When I tried to
> > > > unsubscribe it said I needed a password which it never sent,
> > > > so I assume I am not "on" his list the strict sense.
> > > >
> > > > Ole
> > > >
> > > > Ole J. Jacobsen
> > > > Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
> > > > Cisco Systems
> > > > Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> > > > E-mail: [email-masked] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list that
> > > > > has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other members as he
> > > > > chooses?
> > > > >
> > > > > You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite. Someone set
> > > > > up a mailing list that was subscribed to [email-masked] and filtered some of
> > > > > our more interesting personalities. Folks that subscribed to it go a feed
> > > > > without the comments of (or replies to) those individuals. Many moved their
> > > > > subscriptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you asking the Trust, or the IETF leadership, to send a cease and desist
> > > > > letter?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing
> > > > > >list, and I'm unhappy about it. I don't know what his
> > > > > >current status is with regard to the [email-masked]
> > > > > >mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing
> > > > > >this mailing list by snagging names from it and
> > > > > >putting us on his mailing list without asking. I'm also
> > > > > >not thrilled that the "welcome" message he sends out
> > > > > >fails to clearly identify who's sending it and that
> > > > > >he does not represent the IETF. This is a small problem
> > > > > >but a problem nonetheless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Melinda
> > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > >Ietf mailing list
> > > > > >[email-masked]
> > > > > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Ietf mailing list
> > > > > [email-masked]
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Ietf mailing list
> > > > [email-masked]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> > > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
> > > 617 344 9000 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > **********************************************************************
> > This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
> > privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
> > are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
> > **********************************************************************
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > 
> > 
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090324/d6bbfe3f/attachment.htm>
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> > 
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:12:10 -0700
> > From: SM <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: IPR/Copyright
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> > 
> > At 16:35 24-03-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
> > >I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
> > >share an impression and suggestion.
> > >
> > >While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
> > >reopen old battles, etc., there is really only one issue at
> > >this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to
> > >
> > > * try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
> > > obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
> > > signoff from previous contributors or
> > >
> > > * treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
> > > provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
> > > of the rights if they are willing to do that but
> > > otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.
> > 
> > That would be the "minimum solution". It does not require authors 
> > to act as lawyers, hire lawyers, or perform a risk assessment to 
> > figure out what they need to do.
> > 
> > >I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
> > >choice, then we are finished. The Trustees would presumably
> > >follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
> > >existing workaround as permanent, and we would all move on.
> > 
> > There is no pressing copyright problem to solve as there is the 
> > existing workaround. Unless there is a compelling reason for the 
> > first choice, I don't see a need to spend more time on this issue.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > -sm 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> > 
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 05:06:01 +0200
> > From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: request for community assistance regarding TICTOC
> > requirements
> > To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> > Message-ID:
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > The TICTOC WG is finalizing the scope of its requirements draft.
> > 
> > As of now the draft has information regarding the timing requirements for
> > - Cellular Backhauling
> > - Circuit Emulation
> > - Test and Measurement
> > - ToD over the general Internet
> > we have still unintegrated information for
> > - Sensor networks
> > - Legal uses of time
> > - Industrial Automation
> > and we have removed two applications for lack of interest or feasibility
> > - Remote Telco
> > - Electric power distribution.
> > 
> > We are still soliciting help in gathering requirements information for
> > - Uses of precise time in networking
> > - Metrology
> > If anyone can help in these latter applications, please contact the TICTOC chairs.
> > If no interest is expressed, we intend removing these applications from the list
> > of applications being considered.
> > 
> > In addition, if someone feels we missed an application that requires
> > distribution of timing information, it is possibly not too late to consider its inclusion.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Y(J)S
> > 
> > 
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090325/286fb03a/attachment.htm>
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > 
> > 
> > End of Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 76
> > ************************************
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> In?dit ! Des Emotic?nes D?jant?es! Installez les dans votre Messenger ! 
> http://www.ilovemessenger.fr/Emoticones/EmoticonesDejantees.aspx
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090325/4aa2d519/attachment.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> End of Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 77
> ************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Téléphonez gratuitement à tous vos proches avec Windows Live Messenger  !  Téléchargez-le maintenant !
http://www.windowslive.fr/messenger/1.asp