[IETF-IDRM] RE: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?

[Mark Baugher]

At 02:57 PM 12/11/2002 -0800, Paul Lambert wrote:

> > Please, I do not have a business need for these emails.
>
>Perhaps no one has a business reason for this committee and it should be 
>disbanded.

Just so we are all on the same page, a stated "business reason" is not 
among the criteria used to establish and guide an Internet Research Task 
Force (IRTF) Research Group such as IDRM 
(ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2014.txt)

Mark


>Business reasons for a specific technology does not guarentee that there 
>is any reason for an open interoperable standard.
>
>
>Paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Theisen, Isabelle [mailto:Isabelle.Theisen@unistudios.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:48 PM
> > To: 'Thomas Hardjono'; 'ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com';
> > 'glarose@info-mech.com'; 'mbaugher@cisco.com'
> > Subject: RE: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?
> >
> >
> > Please, I do not have a business need for these emails.
> > Please, remove from the list.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Hardjono [mailto:thardjono@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:09 PM
> > To: Gord Larose
> > Cc: ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com
> > Subject: Re: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?
> >
> >
> > At 12/11/2002||03:16 PM, Gord Larose wrote:
> > >Hi Thomas,
> > >Thanks for the feedback and update. At a high level I agree with you
> > >completely.
> > >
> > >However, at a technical level, "Open source DRM" makes my
> > brain hurt.  It's
> > >hard enough hide anything in BINARY inside a PC; but like it
> > or not, that's
> > >one thing  DRM has to do.  I should know... the NetActive
> > technology I was
> > >largely responsible for addresses exactly that problem. That
> > technology has
> > >never, to my knowledge, been publicly cracked... but I doubt
> > that would have
> > >been true if we'd published the source !
> >
> > Yes, I agree: "open source DRM" makes my brain hurt too :)
> > However, this
> > seems to be the only way to provide an alternative to proprietary
> > technology.  In many cases, perhaps the mom-and-pop
> > "publisher" does not
> > need 100% hack-proof DRM (maybe not even 90% hack-proof), but
> > enough to
> > discourage non-technical people from trying to break it.
> >
> >
> > >And from a business perspective, Mom & Pop businesses already have
> > >inexpensive,  low-end protection technologies available e.g. from
> > >third-party software TBYB wrappers, or via, say, Windows
> > Media Player DRM.
> > >The obstacles are more about complexity, churn,  supplier
> > viability, trust,
> > >and branding, than about cost or availability.
> >
> > Hmm, I'm not sure I follow here.  WMP is only for certain
> > types of contents
> > (e.g. not books, newspapers, newletters, etc).
> >
> >
> >
> > >So we'd have to be careful about what the values of such a
> > system were... if
> > >we could figure out how it would work !
> > >
> > >Here's an entertaining thought: suppose we emphasize TRUST
> > and CONTINUITY.
> > >Maybe we could even subvert Palladium and the Fritz Chip to
> > nobler ends ?
> > >i.e. a system that WILL, in some sense, robustly protect
> > content, but WILL
> > >NOT - as a matter of the supplier's policy  - do any of  the
> > things that
> > >consumers and libertarians rightly fear ? And a further benefit of an
> > >open-source (that may not be the right term, maybe
> > "distributed ownership"
> > >is better) model could be the continuing availability of the
> > solution e.g.
> > >Red Hat may die, but Linux won't.
> >
> >
> > OK, so this is a *very* interesting question.  These are the types of
> > questions that needs to be discussed in a open forum and
> > where pieces of it
> > can be standardized (the way many pieces of Linux has been
> > standardized).
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > thomas
> > ------
> >
> >
> >
> > >I'm not sure how to do this, but maybe we could figure it out !
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >    Gord 8-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Thomas Hardjono" <thardjono@verisign.com>
> > >To: <glarose@info-mech.com>; <ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:55 PM
> > >Subject: Re: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Gord,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with most of your comments. Judging from the
> > "emotional outcry" we
> > > > received at the last IDRM meeting (Salt Lake City IETF,
> > end of 2001), DRM
> > > > seems to mean different things to different people.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 12/11/2002||09:23 AM, Gord Larose wrote:
> > > > >Hello:
> > > > >   Most of you on the list will not know me, as I came
> > in during your
> > >period
> > > > >of dormancy. I too have been mulling these issues, as
> > the DRM company
> > >that
> > > > >I helped found (NetActive) struggled like most others in
> > the space.
> > > > >
> > > > >I think there are two classes of issues here - the
> > social-advocacy ones
> > > > >and the technical ones.
> > > > >
> > > > >The social-advocacy issues are horribly subjective. The
> > concerns were
> > > > >well expressed in Mark's email, and we could spend
> > thousands of words
> > > > >debating them.  For what it
> > > > >is worth, I believe that DRM is not philosophically
> > wrong, and further,
> > >that
> > > > >it is commercially necessary. However, I do not believe
> > that the current
> > > > >"axis of greed" between Hollywood and Washington serves the best
> > >interests
> > > > >of American citizens and, as a Canadian, I am very
> > concerned about the
> > > > >United States' efforts to impose its draconian views of copyright
> > > > >enforcement on the rest of the world.
> > > > >  Good DRM does not have to put Big Brother on your hard
> > drive. If it
> > >does,
> > > > >then the price is too high.
> > > >
> > > > Right. So one of the notions we put forward in the IETF
> > was:  is it at all
> > > > possible to create "open-source DRM technologies", so that small
> > > > mom-and-pop publishers need not pay $$$ for proprietary
> > solutions.  The
> > > > analogy is that with Linux and the Apache webserver,
> > which are available
> > > > for around $30.
> > > > Another useful comparison in the RSA encryption
> > algorithm, which is good
> > > > technology, well understood, standardized and now finally
> > over the patent
> > > > hurdle.
> > > >
> > > > I realize that some folks take the (radical) position of
> > being against any
> > > > development of DRM technology whatsoever.  The best way
> > to ensure Big
> > > > Brother does not happen is to go against any work
> > relating to DRM. The
> > > > reality is that DRM Technology is here to stay
> > (proprietary), whether we
> > > > like it or not.  It will ship inside PCs and in consumer
> > electronics
> > > > devices.  I think such a position actually helps the Big
> > Brother syndrome,
> > > > as it does not provide an option to the general public as
> > to alternative
> > > > sources of technology.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >On a philosophical level then, I say there is a need for
> > smart people to
> > > > >build workable DRM that citizens can live with.
> > > > >
> > > > >The point issue of this technical group's mandate is
> > much clearer IMO.
> > >The
> > > > >core
> > > > >technology challenges for DRM are terminal node
> > challenges, not network
> > > > >challenges. Sure, a network is usually involved, but DRM
> > is nothing
> > >special
> > > > >for the network. DRM's basic network needs are nothing
> > harder than
> > > > >http/https over tcp/ip. And the terminal mode challenges
> > are largely
> > >about
> > > > >things like tamper-resistance, which are proprietary and not very
> > >amenable
> > > > >to
> > > > >standardization. It's not something where an IETF group
> > adds much value.
> > > >
> > > > Right.  This is where the word "DRM" is I think a
> > misnomer for the IETF
> > > > efforts.  You are absolutely right, that DRM is indeed
> > "terminal node
> > > > challenges" (ie. development of rights-enforcing
> > terminals), which is not
> > > > the traditional area of work for the IETF.
> > > >
> > > > However, there some network issues that is part of what I
> > call the "DRM
> > > > macrocosm", which included functions relating to
> > look-ups, secure network
> > > > storage, transaction clearinghouse, etc.  These would appear to be
> > >suitable
> > > > for work items in the IETF.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, one possible change to IDRM is a new name that is
> > less likely to be
> > > > controversial.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >So where does that leave the group ? Seems to me the
> > options include:
> > > > >1) disband
> > > > >2) generalize the focus to a multidisciplinary one,
> > along the lines of
> > > > >http://www.bcdforum.org . (Though I have to confess I find that
> > >organization
> > > > >lacking substance.)
> > > > >3) Find specific technical problems that are obstacles
> > to good (i.e.
> > > > >effective but not Orwellian) DRM, which are going
> > begging, and in scope,
> > > > >and work on solutions.
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't have a top-of-mind suggestion for #3, but it
> > sounds like the most
> > > > >fun!
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the keyword is "fun".  Perhaps others on the list
> > may have specific
> > > > suggestions?
> > > >
> > > > cheers,
> > > >
> > > > thomas
> > > > ------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Other thoughts ???
> > > > >
> > > > >Best Regards,
> > > > >    Gord Larose
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "Mark Baugher" <mbaugher@cisco.com>
> > > > >To: <ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
> > > > >Cc: <thardjono@yahoo.com>; "Vern Paxson" <vern@icir.org>
> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:43 PM
> > > > >Subject: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?
> > > > >
> > > > > > IDRM has obviously been dormant for about a year.
> > > > > >SNIP<
> > > >
> >