Subject: Re: Non-Repudiation

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:35:17 -0400

Bob,

>[snip]
>>Most of "we" are not trying to do what you suggest.  We are defining a bit
>>and explaining what we mean when the bit is turn on or off.  Others will
>>decide, over time, how that fits into any specific legal context.  We have
>>an obligation to make good technical decisions regarding the syntax and
>>processing for our protocols, and I believe that we are doing just that.
>
>The issue is not the syntax, but the semantics, and semantics necessarily
>involve more than just "good technical decisions".  Such decisions have
>to fit into a broader context of how the specifications and products
>embodying them are to be used.

I agree that the semantics are at issue here, but good technical judgement
IS still cntral to the operation of this and other IETF WGs.  Legislators
in different states and different parts of the world are tackling these
issues with  varying results.  The IETF is interneationla in scope and
generates standards that try not to bend to "local" laws/regulations
whenever the results may be skewed.  Note, for example, IESG/IAB/IETF
crypto policy.  In the absence of consistent, sound, legal bases for
discussing NR, I reject the notion that the PKIX standards should be
strongly influenced by the current, haphazard set of regulations.

>[snip]
>
>>Deliberation on a topic is valuable up to a point.  I think we passed that
>>point on this topic a while ago.
>
>Pardon me, Steve, but the fact that this issue has droned on for a number
>of years without any satisfactory resolution is an obvious indication that
>there is a lack of consensus on this.
>
>On the contrary, there seems to be a fair amount of consensus that the
>current definition and explanation of "what we mean when the bit is
>turned on or off"  is NOT adequate, and NOT a good technical decision,
>and various people are trying to decide how to fix it.

I read the traffic differently.  Some of the participants in the discussion
who are agruing that we got it wrong in 2459 are new to the list, at least
as contributors, and some others have had their say and failed to persuade
the WG to adopt a different approach.  We operate on concensus, not
unanimity.

Steve