Subject: Re: [ltans] "Proof Source Provider" - new term for use in describing trust chains in document hierarchies

From: Bill Russell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:28:18 -0400

We (Pericore) already use that term to express digitally signed authorizations. Also, Corestreet uses that term in one of their products. I think the term is overloaded and should not be used as you propose.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Todd Glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: 9/15/09 11:17 AM
Subject: [ltans] "Proof Source Provider" - new term for use in describing trust chains in document hierarchies

Folks -
I want to propose a new term for describing certain relationships in a 
network model. The term is  "Proof Source Provider" or PSP and it means 
some service which is providing a trust-anchor for some other process or 
the like. The PSP is the party or system which provides the oversight 
and process control for an TRUST-ANCHOR - the component of the trust 
element which ties the specific content to that trust element. The Term 
Trust Anchor (now widely in use in Secure DNS) was coined in PKIX 
several years ago but is critically valuable now in other areas and we 
should embrace both it and the idea of the Proof Source Provider and the 
Proof Source they use to cerate admissibility for the evidence.

It (PSP)  pertains then to auditing trust relationships and their 
ability to convey policy and control over a larger methodology and is a 
key part of relational trust models which are propagated across multiple 
technologies and would be used in LTANS Security and other key processes.

Why this is important is that systems and processes which we would build 
from these technologies would also perform functions in the real world 
which would have legal implications and so the ability to represent 
trust-anchor processes in the records created would admissible in global 
courts. This nomenclature provides a resource for this and other uses.

Todd Glassey

_______________________________________________
ltans mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans

---

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:21:07 -0700

Bill Russell wrote:
> We (Pericore) already use that term to express digitally signed authorizations.
Bummer - its copyrighted and not currently under any license.
>  Also, Corestreet uses that term in one of their products. I think the term is overloaded and should not be used as you propose.
>   
The term was used by me officially in print 10 years ago and it was 
(c)'d on those works... your general counsel may get a kick out of that 
and I can provide those documents to anyone that wants them.

My proposal here was to file that term with the IETF to make it 
available to the public which IT IS NOT NOW.  The term pertains to 
trust-anchors in timestamps for evidence promulgation through digital 
networks and this was done in the 1999 through 2001 time frame on my 
CertifiedTime startup.

So Bill, any comments?

Todd Glassey
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.99/2372 - Release Date: 09/15/09 05:59:00
>
>

---

From: "Remo Tabanelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:06:36 +0200 (CEST)

On Mar, 15 Settembre 2009 6:21 pm, Todd Glassey wrote:
>>  Also, Corestreet uses that term in one of their products. I think the
>> term is overloaded and should not be used as you propose.
>>

Bill & Todd

Until now... and for more than two years I was silent on this list.
and... today I'm very sad.

IMHO a discussion in a IETF WG about copyrighted terms (or any other  so
called I.P. "wapor issue") is misplaced here.

I'm not interested in hearing from anyone of us who was the first that
used a plain english expression like "Proof Source Provider" because the
first source of these terms is the common language... and I suppose you
can find anyone of these word on a common dictionary!

IMHO a phrase (in any language) is (or must be) without a specific and
*explained contest* uncopyrightable.
I'ts not realistic pretend to have a copyright on a term (or phrase)
without the accluded (and this can be eventually copyrigthed not the
single term or phrase) document/work.

So if the WG think that using this terms is useful (IMHO) can decide to
use it, if not we will not use it.

Simply as that.

Tank you all folks!

Remo Tabanelli

---

From: Bill Russell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:53:14 -0400

Hi Todd & Remo,

If the term Proof is in fact copyrighted, I would guess that any legal rights were lost long ago by failing to enforce it properly, as it is used by multiple companies and with multiple products. That notwithstanding, the emphasis of my email was not on copyrighted terminology, but rather on the fact that the term might be confused in usage. Carl's comment is perhaps the more important though, does this topic even warrant discussion as part of this group? I apologize for any confusion I may have introduced by my email, as I was merely trying to suggest that the term is overloaded. I think your email continues to make the point that it is in fact not the best for this group to incorporate. 

Take care,
Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Remo Tabanelli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:07 PM
To: Todd Glassey
Cc: Bill Russell; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ltans] "Proof Source Provider" - new term for use in describing trust chains in document hierarchies

Bill & Todd

Simply as that.

Tank you all folks!

Remo Tabanelli

---

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:08:50 -0700

Bill Russell wrote:
> Hi Todd & Remo,
>
> If the term Proof is in fact copyrighted, 
yep...
> I would guess that any legal rights were lost long ago by failing to enforce it properly, 
Since the entity who copywrite'd it is involved in litigation the rights 
are not clear from my perspective - but hey that's a different story. I 
was intending to surrender my rights on it and make it IETF property 
(scary thought that eh?) but if you folks want to push back against that 
I will withdraw the offer.
> as it is used by multiple companies and with multiple products. That notwithstanding, the emphasis of my email was not on copyrighted terminology, but rather on the fact that the term might be confused in usage. 
OK - how so? My intent is to get a CMS type solution based on this 
technology into production here in the US.
> Carl's comment is perhaps the more important though, does this topic even warrant discussion as part of this group? 
That's specifically what I was trying to figure out. If LTANS doesnt 
want it I am totally cool with that.
> I apologize for any confusion I may have introduced by my email, as I was merely trying to suggest that the term is overloaded. I think your email continues to make the point that it is in fact not the best for this group to incorporate. 
>   
Me as well !

Todd

---

From: "Remo Tabanelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:07:54 +0200 (CEST)

On Mar, 15 Settembre 2009 7:53 pm, Bill Russell wrote:
> Hi Todd & Remo,
>
> If the term Proof is in fact copyrighted, I would guess that any legal
> rights were lost long ago by failing to enforce it properly, as it is used
> by multiple companies and with multiple products. That notwithstanding,
> the emphasis of my email was not on copyrighted terminology, but rather on
> the fact that the term might be confused in usage. Carl's comment is
> perhaps the more important though, does this topic even warrant discussion
> as part of this group? I apologize for any confusion I may have introduced
> by my email, as I was merely trying to suggest that the term is
> overloaded. I think your email continues to make the point that it is in
> fact not the best for this group to incorporate.
>
> Take care,
> Bill

Bill I fully understand your warning and (at least in part) I agree with
you... but this is not what I am worried about.

I have not expressed an opinion about the fact that  using the term
proposed by Todd is appropriate or not.

My opinion was simply about the fact that we (the WG) can or cannot use
the proposed term!
And clearly I have a very firm opinion about the fact that we can use it
and... let me reinforce te concept... IMHO if we want (if we, all the
folks here, agree on it) we can use *any* term we like!
Disregarding totally the **miserable** "topic" about the pretended
"copyrighted" term.

"Proof" you said?...

In the real life be sure that I will challenge in any court any allegation
(to me or any of my interest) about the use of a single english word (or
any language) or common phrase/term like "Proof".... if you (or any other)
pretend the exclusive use of the term (without the entire document or
context of the *really copyrigthed work*) ...

I will ack on any copyrigthed work but not (repeat not) on any
"decontestualized" term or word included in the copyrigthed work!

Pretending the exclusive use of a term or single phrase (without a contex
or case specification) is absurd in any *legal system* of this (real)
world!
This is *not legal* and not fair!
And.. yes... maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that (in the case) I will
be the winner!

Just to explain are you sustaining that because I can read (in many RFC)
the following:
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (xxxx)"
And, in the same document, terms like "Must" "shall" "Must be" etc.. I
cannot freely use it (the same terms in any different document) as I want?

As example I can use the term "windows" as I want and where I want.

I only must take care of it only (and only if) I talk about a specific
O.S. or Product(s).

And last (but not least) are we a IETF WG made solely of *individuals* or
a lobby of employes of some corporation claiming some vague "wapor IP" on
some product/document/implementation?

This is what made me sad!

Remo Tabanelli

> Subject: Re: [ltans] "Proof Source Provider" - new term for use in
> describing trust chains in document hierarchies
>

---

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:47:40 -0700

> On Mar, 15 Settembre 2009 7:53 pm, Bill Russell wrote:
Remo
having personally taken a matter to the US Supreme Court (case 
#08-01088) , it aint anywhere as easy as we think it should be.  And to 
reinforce this, I am saying a 100 Page publication for the Supreme Court 
will cost about $10K to publish including the $40/Page typesetting fees 
for the final copy and the building of the various Tables at $100 a page 
or more for the typesetting alone. The figure in the binding cost  and 
cost of submit to the Court ($300 + courier fees), and since I speak 
from first hand experience arguing this is pointless.

That aside, the IETF relies on its research exemption under section 107 
of the DCMA to allow it to talk about anything it likes - and that's the 
problem here since the users of the IETF standards are not legally 
allowed to use that code or IP in the real world just because the IETF 
told them they could reprint the standards-effort paperwork and content.

It's one of the flaws in the logic the IETF puts forward. The IETF's 
license is not about anything other than the publication for the 
standards process and whether the people using those to implement code 
or not realize it the IETF cannot provide a right-to-use status on 
copyrighted work they dont own no matter what. Representing that they 
would or could do so may also be a criminal act of electronic fraud in 
this case in my opinion.

So in bringing that term fully inside the IETF as a NoteWell 
work-product I was trying to make that pain go away... But hey I get 
your concern so if the IETF isnt worried about that  I totally 
understand and we can just withdraw the offer.

Have a great day, 
Todd Glassey

---

From: "Remo Tabanelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:50:21 +0200 (CEST)

> would or could do so may also be a criminal act of electronic fraud in

No Todd!
Let me say (friendly) that the flaw is in your side not on the IETF side!

Your flaw is argue that a single phrase in *plain language* or term is a
or can be a copyrigthed work "in se"!

1) As matter of fact you can made a "copyrigthed mark" with a common word
or phrase but this unaffect my freedom or right of using the term (or the
freedom of anyone in this world) except the fact that I cannot made a
product or a company with this name.

2) As matter of fact you can have used a term or phrase in copyrigthted
document or work or implementation but this unaffect my freedom to use the
same term in any other *different* (and... why not...also copyrighted
work).

The word "copy" before "right" have a "magic" sense here.

To be in "violation" I must not only use a single phrase or word.
I must "copy" significant parts of the context of the entire work and
apply it at the same case or implementation.
If *any* of these conditions does not match there is no violation!

That's the law my friend and international agreements have made and
produced similar criteria and laws in my country in your contry and so
on....

And (I repeat to be clear) I will challenge any allegation in any court,
in any country of this world about the sole use of the the term " Proof
Source Provider" or similar.

I and any other person in this world will be free (despite the fact that
the term is used or not used in a copyrigthed work) to use the term 
"Proof Source Provider" and even to use it in another copyrigthed work!

But I want no more discuss this topic because i feel that I'm annoyng the
other folks in the WG

In short if you are cool with your opininion I am cool too with mine :)

Remo Tabanelli

P.S. I have also (me too) a first hand experience here on an Italian court
about the usability of the term "PKI Infrastructure"... (litteraly from
Italian language to English).
Someone (in Italy) was (in a very past time) attempting to affirm/claim a
copyrigth on this!

---

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:50:58 -0700

> Let me say (friendly) that the flaw is in your side not on the IETF side!
No Remo its not. The flaw here is in  your argument. You clearly also 
want to argue about this and I don't - I made the offer to the IETF to 
help clean things up but I honestly would rather not waste timing 
arguing with your opinion.

So as I said last time consider the offer withdrawn.

Todd Glassey