[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-ltans-dssc-00 comments
Herr Kunz - allow me to expand and provide some links backing up what I am
saying here. More inline below -
[ By the way - although these rules are specific to US Courts, through the
MRA's (Mutual Recognition Agreement's) and the Legal Metrological
Agreement's between our Countries these are important factors to at least
review in the design of anything that will be used to contain long-term
legally-provable instances of anything, no matter what Jurisdiction they are
operated in or pursuant to the rules of...]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Kunz" <thomas.kunz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf-ltans@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ltans-dssc-00 comments
todd glassey schrieb:
That is a decision controlled by the Hosting Entity's Operations Policies
and needs to be retained as such. The answer is that both methods should
work IMHO.
With "Hosting Entity" do you mean the publisher of a policy?
Yes although that policy may be layered on other local policies and/or
controls as well.
> For policy brevity,
which IS NOT a good thing here... Policy is what allows NEA to be used
in a number of different scenario's
Unfortunately, we are not familiar with the abbreviations you use (NEA,
MRA, FRE). So would you please give some explanations? Thanks.
NEA is the IETF NEA proposed protocol - a toolset for preqwualifing and
continuously qualifying a node or infrastructure for 'permission to operate'
within a network at some defined level of Entitlement.
MRA is a term meaning 'Mutual Recognition Agreements' - these are treaties
and other agreement's like the "Legal Metrological Agreement's" which create
the ability to internationally timestamp digital content. Here for example
is a MRA between the US and Iceland which also notices conformity with EFTA
and EEA entity rules as well.
http://ts.nist.gov/Standards/Global/upload/US-EEA_EFTA_States_MRA_Oct_17_051.pdf -
the point is that there a MANY of these which constrain the operations of
international commerce - something that LTANS needs to facilitate the
enduring proof of.
FRE is the US Federal Rules of Evidence - which constrain how content is
qualified as evidence for the US District and Circuit Courts.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/
Nope... I dont think this has anything to do with "law cases". I think it
has to do with logging and assurance models and that's about it. What's
missing is to qualify NEA under the new Judge Grimm ruling so that NEA
based testimnoy ius admissible into the US and Foreign Court's that
support similar standards or MRA's.
You want to know what is missing here?
a.. Relevance; i.e. meets F.R.E. 401
<snip>
Also at this point, some further explanations would be nice and helpful
for understanding.
On May 4th 2007 a US Federal Court Judge (Chief Magistrate Judge Paul W.
Grimm) from the Maryland District Courts issued what many are referring to
as a landmark ruling in a key case called Lorraine v Markel, and as to what
that case has to do with the IETF's LTANS group, it set the standard under
the US Federal Rules of Evidence for what ESI (Electronically Stored
Information) MUST comply with in order to be admissible in a US Court. See
our link at www.wireless-time.com/site/news/news-judicial1.htm for links to
the Judges ruling itself.
Poof - instant hurdle for anything that would create or maintain digital
content for legal review.
The scope of this ruling is just now being understood because a number of us
have actually broken the interacting laws down through flowcharting and
process mapping to make a mechanical determination of the scope of this
ruling.
http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/2007/05/articles/case-summaries/chief-us-magistrate-judge-grimm-provides-detailed-analysis-of-evidentiary-issues-associated-with-electronic-evidence/
That scope not only includes any and all information which civilians may
bring before the Court but also to any ESI which a US Attorney may come to
bring before the Federal Court's as evidence of something. That means any
document which is formally filed with the US Government by ANYONE is
constrained under this since it is the Courts, which under the
Constritutions Articles and in particular, US Code's Title 5, provides
relief from Executive and certain DoD Branch actions as well as Lower Court
rulings.
So Judge Grimm's District Court (DC) ruling actually effects the use of
LTANS technology in the US directly but it also forces that same recognition
by any "Foreign Entity which is tied to the US through Mutual Recognition
Agreement's for time and other legal standards"... and yes this ruling
invalidates a number of the components and idea behind RFC3161 as well as
the ETSI's time stamping directive which violates those MRAs directly
andIMHO International Law as such.
As to why he could do this - Judge Grimm is one of the US Court Systems
strongest proponents of rules for digital content. He is a very noted Judge
who's role as the Chief Magistrate Judge for his district gives him exactly
this ability.
http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/39fed/04usmag/html/msa13723.html
http://www.thesedonaconference.org/people/profiles/GrimmPaul
Todd