[12:30:50] --- jishac has become available
[12:30:54] --- jishac has left
[14:15:33] --- SAH has become available
[14:16:15] --- SAH has left: Replaced by new connection
[14:16:15] --- SAH has become available
[14:34:14] --- galvinjamesm has become available
[14:44:07] --- hartmans has become available
[14:44:10] --- tlyu has become available
[14:45:02] --- raeburn has become available
[14:45:20] --- jis has become available
[14:46:13] --- jhutz has become available
[14:46:48] <jhutz> draft-gildred-perm-01.txt
[14:55:08] --- leg has become available
[14:58:03] --- mlshore has become available
[14:58:40] <SAH> Is someone taking notes for the minutes?
[14:59:16] --- warlord has become available
[15:01:48] <warlord> so, what's going on?
[15:02:23] --- mstjohns has become available
[15:02:27] --- jaltman has become available
[15:03:14] <mstjohns> What -> introduction on architecture. Sounds like the first 1/2 of this will be tutorial.
[15:04:06] <warlord> Can someone translate the salient points into here for those of us not in the room?
[15:05:03] --- rlbob has become available
[15:05:14] <mstjohns> See the document at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gildred-perm-01.txt for the general idea.
[15:05:41] <mstjohns> (Would scribe, but trying to finish reading the docs...)
[15:06:15] <warlord> too much to read right now..
[15:06:17] <hartmans> Why is this protocol unlike all other key exchange protocols
[15:06:22] --- sakai has become available
[15:06:28] <hartmans> answer: It carries policy payload.
[15:06:49] --- ggm has become available
[15:06:53] --- kenh has become available
[15:09:33] <hartmans> Publishers and vendors are waiting for standards in this space.
[15:10:07] <hartmans> perm wants to split technical part of the distribution solution from the business part of the solution
[15:10:33] <hartmans> Description of how perm got started
[15:10:54] <warlord> Sure, but if you don't have a standard for the policy blobs you're shipping around then what's the point of a standard distribution channel?
[15:11:22] --- peterd has become available
[15:11:23] <mstjohns> questions I have: How does this compare/contrast with the opencable/opentv standards (e.g. HDTV don't copy bit)? How does this compare/contrast with the Firewire protection mechanisms?
[15:11:25] <rlbob> their proposal does include a spec for the policy blob
[15:12:11] --- dlpartain has become available
[15:12:45] <hartmans> [not scribing] I don't understand why SMIME messages plus a policy blob isn't sufficient
[15:13:31] --- leifj has become available
[15:13:40] <rlbob> or, for a new age framework, WS-Security, which has a newly-specified method for carrying REL tokens (ie, XrML)
[15:14:28] <hartmans> While at the IETf, I not surprisingly prefer our protocols;)
[15:15:40] <mstjohns> I'm about 25% into the document - problem I see here is that even with the "standard" protocols, its still going to require licensing/cross-certification to do the protection they're talking about.
[15:16:59] --- sureshkr has become available
[15:17:02] <leifj> I like section 14.3 - UDP+retransmissions and not a word about encoding
[15:17:05] <hartmans> Yes, they admit that. They believe this will make it easier for vendors.
[15:17:14] <hartmans> I'm not sure it falls within our mission though.
[15:17:23] --- suz-isc has become available
[15:17:56] <jhutz> Is this intended to run on the Internet?
[15:18:00] <mstjohns> might be our stuff, if we can figure out how to make this work for things like open source and linux (as an example)
[15:18:13] <mstjohns> Yes (on internet) or home zone
[15:18:13] <rlbob> "suitable for IP networks" is on the current slide
[15:18:16] <leifj> probably - your typical content provider isn't your isp
[15:19:27] <tlyu> eh? broadband content provider/isp is common, i thought.
[15:20:16] --- sureshkr has left: Replaced by new connection
[15:20:16] --- sureshkr has become available
[15:20:17] --- sureshkr has left
[15:20:46] --- sureshkr has become available
[15:21:01] <leifj> The typical cable provider probably isn't what they want to optimize for... or?
[15:21:15] <leifj> anyway - whats wrong with tcp?
[15:21:29] --- Tom Phelan has become available
[15:21:47] <hartmans> We seem to be suffering from the assumption that business models of content distribution drive consumer confidence. I think the content that is distributed matter much more.
[15:21:56] <mstjohns> cable provider is a re-seller of TV content and may also be a content provider for broadband cable-modem services.
[15:25:46] --- rpayn422 has become available
[15:27:18] <peterd> \\\
[15:27:19] <peterd> \
[15:30:47] --- sureshkr has left: Replaced by new connection
[15:30:47] --- sureshkr has become available
[15:30:47] --- sureshkr has left
[15:31:18] --- Suresh Krishnan has become available
[15:32:22] --- ekr has become available
[15:32:25] --- Tom Phelan has left
[15:36:15] <mstjohns> I'm not sure why they've come to the IETF... except for our good name?
[15:37:05] <ekr> As Stacey would say "like duh"
[15:37:10] <ggm> well, it started in IRTF with that crap about IPR management for digital content. so having invited the snuff movie makers in the door, we can't really complain when they want to change the oil in the chainsaws on our carpet...
[15:38:10] <mstjohns> ekr - Obviously, no one explained to them about our long drawn out standards practice
[15:38:28] <leifj> ;-)
[15:38:46] <SAH> I think Thomas already knows how the process works.
[15:39:08] --- suz-isc has left
[15:39:26] --- suz-isc has become available
[15:39:51] --- suz-isc has left
[15:40:53] --- leifj has left
[15:42:27] <mstjohns> perm-ecm -> paramecium?
[15:42:55] --- suz-isc has become available
[15:43:35] --- suz-isc has left
[15:43:57] --- suz-isc has become available
[15:44:05] --- suz-isc has left
[15:45:01] --- perry has become available
[15:45:44] --- leifj has become available
[15:47:10] <perry> The security all relies on prayer anyway. shouldn't they be going to a church instead of a BOF at IETF?
[15:48:21] <ekr> The church of DRM.
[15:49:13] --- mstjohns has left
[15:50:38] <hartmans> If this happens in the IETF it MUST happen in the security area.
[15:50:49] <jis> I would agree with that
[15:51:05] --- SAH has left
[15:51:52] <jhutz> Yes, absolutely
[15:57:30] --- dlpartain has left
[16:00:53] --- ggm has left
[16:01:27] --- ekr has left: Disconnected
[16:01:46] <jis> There is something important and subtle going on here
[16:02:13] <perry> what, jeff?
[16:02:15] <jis> Content providers can (and do) enforce rules that go beyond what law would normally provide
[16:02:46] <jis> If we standardize the "operations" that are permitted via the PERM payload, we can control what can and cannot be done
[16:03:01] <perry> they can add extensions
[16:03:16] <perry> and there is no way people will have enough energy to control the consensus that way.
[16:08:06] <perry> anyway, if the video streaming etc. isn't standardized, how will standardized key exchange protocols make the boxes interoperable?
[16:08:23] <perry> media distribution is a whole system, not just a small component
[16:09:45] --- ekr has become available
[16:16:03] <rlbob> jis: I'm not sure if you are advocating the idea that PERM would limit the ability of CPs to do onerous things, or just observing that that's what these guys are doing, but I am very dubious that this will work; ie only letting them think good thoughts will eliminate bad ones
[16:16:34] <ekr> I'm getting grumpy.
[16:16:47] <warlord> I've done DRM in a previous life.
[16:16:53] <perry> by the way, I really don't see why doing online requests of a kdc wouldn't be better for them.
[16:16:55] <warlord> I've got two patents on the topic..
[16:16:59] <perry> then they can deny keys in real time.
[16:17:01] <warlord> I don't want to relive it.
[16:17:11] <perry> using certs invites new and exciting attacks on the hardware
[16:17:21] <jaltman> does the IETF really want to develop a security protocol we expect will be broken ?
[16:17:39] <perry> not particularly
[16:17:44] <hartmans> I don't expect the security protocol to be broken just the devices.
[16:18:00] <hartmans> However, I don't think we want a new key exchange protocol.
[16:18:04] <hartmans> We already have several.
[16:18:32] <tlyu> so encryption might be of value to content providers if the content is delivered over an open network, even if you're depending on the user to be honest.
[16:18:45] <perry> sure
[16:19:04] <hartmans> Yeah, but this is mostly not for content delivery over the open network; this is mostly within a home.
[16:19:05] <perry> but why not just ssl to the media server, say "I'm joe, can I have the key", and if the database says you're permissioned it hands you a key
[16:19:35] <perry> even inside a home, you're better off I think without certs for permission
[16:19:40] <hartmans> Perry, perm looks a lot like parts of SSl
[16:19:51] <perry> only re-done badly
[16:20:10] <tlyu> some home networks might effectively be open, e.g. 802.11 networks.
[16:20:39] <ekr> Oh, look, it's DRMNet!
[16:21:23] <warlord> DRMNet is monitoring you
[16:21:55] <ekr> I don't see the point of all this. Next year you'll have Palladium for Brains and you won't even be able to think about violating these licenses.
[16:22:03] --- peterd has left
[16:23:21] <perry> eh, that's alarmist. why worry when no one has demonstrated the technology working even in a restricted environment?
[16:23:57] --- leifj has left
[16:24:12] <ekr> You mean the software-in-skull technology?
[16:24:30] --- leg has left: Disconnected
[16:24:37] --- leg has become available
[16:24:42] <perry> no, we have that already.
[16:24:47] <warlord> mmm.. wetware
[16:25:07] <warlord> luckily we dont have many wetware hackers out there, yet.
[16:25:20] <jis> I had a lawyer tell me once that when I looked at protected content I was making a copy, on my retina
[16:25:42] <warlord> isn't that illegal?
[16:25:53] <jis> He said it was tolerated
[16:26:02] <tlyu> heh. how widely held is this opinion?
[16:26:13] <perry> I wonder if telling someone else the plot of a film is circumvention
[16:26:34] <jis> I don't know, but it was a good example of some ridiculous things in this space.
[16:29:05] <perry> it is a serious question.
[16:29:30] --- jaltman has left: Disconnected
[16:30:37] <jis> "IKE is too hard because there are too many documents to read"
[16:30:47] <warlord> So let's write ANOTHER doc!
[16:30:50] <jis> "perm is nice and self contained"
[16:30:54] <jis> Seems bogus to me
[16:31:00] <Suresh Krishnan> can we not use gdoi?
[16:32:04] --- galvinjamesm has left
[16:32:35] <Suresh Krishnan> the reason drm has not gone far is because everyone has incompatible and non-interoperable standards
[16:32:54] <jis> But does the IETF want to be the ones making the standard here
[16:32:55] <Suresh Krishnan> by doing this the content providers can dictate what we do
[16:32:59] <Suresh Krishnan> goodbye fair use
[16:33:00] <jis> yep
[16:33:22] <perry> I don't think they *want* interop. the engineers want interop, but the managers do not.
[16:33:24] --- jaltman has become available
[16:33:32] <perry> sony's new drm'ed music format is usable only on sony players
[16:33:58] <Suresh Krishnan> what is the time frame?
[16:34:04] --- ekr has left: Disconnected
[16:34:10] <Suresh Krishnan> chair says 1 year ;-)
[16:34:39] <Suresh Krishnan> I am tired of the CD-like thingies calling themselves CDs
[16:36:25] <hartmans> Kurt proposes reviewing app aea protocols for policy
[16:37:07] --- rpayn422 has left: Logged out
[16:39:00] --- mlshore has left: Disconnected
[16:39:13] --- raeburn has left
[16:39:22] --- mlshore has become available
[16:41:10] <Suresh Krishnan> chair:this proocol will not solve issues which exist in the real world
[16:41:28] <Suresh Krishnan> rogue employees...
[16:41:30] <warlord> if it wont solve real-world issues then why proceed?
[16:41:47] <Suresh Krishnan> don't know
[16:41:54] --- jis has left: Disconnected
[16:42:00] <warlord> can you pose the question, please?
[16:42:17] <Suresh Krishnan> there is no time
[16:42:24] <warlord> there's 10 minutes
[16:42:29] --- mlshore has left: Disconnected
[16:42:36] <warlord> Unless they've decided to can the WG.
[16:42:39] <Suresh Krishnan> they have stuff to do
[16:42:52] <warlord> "they"?
[16:42:53] <perry> like can the working group?
[16:43:14] <Suresh Krishnan> the iesg seems to have blessed this and the why question raised a couple of times earlier has gone nowhere
[16:43:19] <warlord> The point of a jabber conference is so people who can't be in the room can ask questions.
[16:43:53] --- sakai has left
[16:44:07] <Suresh Krishnan> they are in a show of hands
[16:44:35] <Suresh Krishnan> not too many yeahs
[16:44:46] --- hartmans has left
[16:44:48] <warlord> what was the question?
[16:45:09] <Suresh Krishnan> what do people feel about this bof?
[16:45:15] <warlord> Ahh, ok.
[16:45:35] --- kenh has left
[16:45:49] <warlord> thanks.
[16:45:52] --- warlord has left
[16:46:15] --- perry has left
[16:47:33] --- leg has left: Disconnected
[16:47:47] <Suresh Krishnan> bof adjourned with no decision
[16:52:51] --- jhutz has left: Disconnected
[16:54:11] --- tlyu has left: Disconnected
[16:55:59] --- jaltman has left: Replaced by new connection
[17:10:34] --- jaltman has become available
[17:11:05] --- rlbob has left: Disconnected
[17:16:01] --- leg has become available
[17:17:19] --- Suresh Krishnan has left: Disconnected
[17:18:04] --- Suresh Krishnan has become available
[17:18:13] --- rpayne has become available
[17:18:45] --- Suresh Krishnan has left
[17:19:42] --- leg has left
[17:22:25] --- tlyu has become available
[17:22:34] --- tlyu has left
[17:26:41] --- jhutz has become available
[17:26:54] --- rpayne has left
[17:26:55] --- jhutz has left
[19:29:37] --- jaltman has left