[ntpwg] Pending NTP WG Last Call on Autokey

[Danny Mayer]

TS Glassey wrote:
> Danny - sometimes you crack me up.
> 

The laughs on you since it's readily apparent from this message that you 
know nothing about the rules of evidence in the US nor that you actually 
read the decision.

> Not true - the case is a matter where the policy terminated prior to a 
> lightning strike that would have been covered under the poilicy. So how 
> is time not specific to it?

You don't need a timestamp for the policy since the policy has a date 
range of the coverage and that's not even the question being discussed 
in the decision.

>> The judge only discusses what is needed to make evidence stored or 
>> sourced on a computer or other electronic devices admissible as 
>> evidence and how they are to introduce it and with what ancillary 
>> proofs and witnesses.
> 
> You crack me up - this isnt for just Judges its for Jury's too.

You have no idea. In this case the judge clearly stated that it's up to 
the judge to decide on the admissibility of evidence. That has always 
been true but the judge decided to include that statement in his 
decision. The judge is always the one to decide on the admissibility of 
evidence, it is never up to the jury. The jury only gets to decide the 
weight of the evidence as it applies to either side.

> My biggest problem is that this group isnt focused on evidence or the 
> creation of it or in coming up with Industry Standards for how NTP 
> transactions should work.

Your biggest problem is confusing the working group with a legal 
standards and auditing group. It has never been in IETF's charter. Go 
read it.

> This group has refused to produce a standard 
> for the performance of NTP which is why there is now OpenNTP and other 
> implementations.

Performance standards have never been an issue for a protocol group. 
This group is about defining an on-wire standard for interoperability of 
cooperating NTP servers. This group is implementation agnostic. The more 
the merrier.

>> There is no discussion of what would happen if the computer was off by 
>> 5 minutes or an hour or three days.
> 
> Sure there is - the evidence would be disqualified.

No, the importance of the timestamp is dependent on the nature of the 
evidence that is being attempted to be introduced.

> How about this - we allow your client's to voice their comments too on 
> what they were led to believe that these systems produce as evidence.

We make no statement on the usability of the software as evidence of 
anything.

Now lets get back to the business of the working group.

Danny