Re: Stupid question: How are "the rights to represent the Sponsor"as codified in BCP78 and BCP79...

["TS Glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

Russ
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
To: "TS Glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>; <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Stupid question: How are "the rights to represent the 
Sponsor"as codified in BCP78 and BCP79...


> Why does the IPR statement need better authentication that the 
> Internet-Draft itself?  This has been asked before, but I have not seen a 
> convincing response.

Lorraine v Markel is the ONLY response you need here. 
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/Lorraine%20v.%20Markel%20-%20ESIADMISSIBILITY%20OPINION.pdf

In fact Harald challanged me to come up with a new court ruling that 
enforced that unauthentictaed email based systems we not going to be 
supported by the US Courts and that case is in fact Lorraine v Markel - 
PWG-06-1983

Todd





_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg