[ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[TS Glassey]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Seaman" <seaman at noao.edu>
To: "NTP Working Group" <ntpwg at lists.ntp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey


> I'm only replying further because my words and Danny's are getting
> interchanged.
>
> TS Glassey wrote:
>
>> The issues are VERY clear and very specific.
>
> A legal opinion can only function to inform use cases and
> requirements, not systems developed from those requirements.  Which is
> to say that it may or may not be very clear and specific what the
> implications are for defining the problem, but nothing has been said
> or will be said by any jurist about defining any engineering solution
> responsive to those requirements.

Actually in Judge Grimm's ruling he admonished "Counsel to get it right the 
first time" meaning that the people the counsel are relying on also need to 
get it right the first time or the evidence then enter may be dismissed with 
predjudice.

>
> I, for one, don't find that the legal requirements have been clearly
> stated as yet.

They are indeed very clearly stated. No one has said to you personally 'This 
is specifically what you need to do to meet those hurdles' who you would 
believe. And this is the same "excuse" the rest of the world tried to scate 
by.

>
> The commentaries I've seen focus on some legal process distinction
> between the discovery of evidence and its admission at trial.
> Similarly, requirements must be discovered before they are addressed
> by a system engineering process.
>
> Additional unhelpful ad hominem (a very legal notion) statements
> deleted.  In particular, there are no engineers getting rich off
> this :-)
>
>> much of the work done over the past couple of years may need to be
>> redone - based on the "Digital Evidence needs" controlling this
>> effort.
>
> All software systems are best regarded as (functional, if you're
> lucky) prototypes.  The question is whether a particular solution is
> satisfactory for some purpose, for some period of time.

Apparently that solution is not any more...

> Focus on that
> question, not on whether NTP is optimum.  No system is optimum for all
> purposes.
>
> One might be naturally skeptical of doing work for free for a legal
> system that will only repay that effort in the future with unending
> subpoenas :-)

Ahahahah - yep.

>If the U.S. government wants a legally mandated
> timekeeping system, they should fund same.

One would think -

>
> Rob
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg