[rfc-i] Big Picture and RFC format

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Thu Jul 12 05:30:23 PDT 2012


As far as answering a subpoena goes, what is relevant is whether the
IETF has the documents requested and whether they can attest to the
authenticity.

Since they are stored on IETF servers and digitally signed by the
IETF, the IETF is the respondent.


Now oddly enough, the IETF does not exist as a separate legal entity
and so getting the certs issued is something of a performance each
time we have switched providers. But that is not something that
bothers courts much when demanding production of evidence.


On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:55 AM, SM <sm at resistor.net> wrote:
> Hi Heather,
>
> At 18:11 11-07-2012, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>>
>> Interesting question.  We've never really analyzed the subpoenas in
>> quite that way.  At least speaking for the ones that have come in
>> recently, none of the subpoenas we've received involved items from the
>> Independent Stream.
>
>
> The latest subpoenas were addressed to the IETF.  There were differences in
> the definition of "IETF".  That's why I asked the question.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list