[DNSOP] IPR disclosure related to draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

All Stephane pointed this out in another message, but we wanted to mention it more formally. Verisign updated the IPR information on qname minimisation http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2542/ This IPR disclosure updates IPR disclosure ID #2469, "Verisign Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to dr

Re: [DNSOP] IPR disclosure related to draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback

> Paul Wouters > Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:30 PM > ... > Trying to get a pay raise at the expense of the IETF community is not > behaviour I would want to condone. that sounds judgemental, even if passively. many people we both respect have their names on handfuls of

Re: [DNSOP] IPR disclosure related to draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback

On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Paul Vixie wrote: counter-productive behaviour. nothing. the people at verisign are smart, constructive, and have their shoulders to the same wheels as the rest of us. I don't doubt they are smart and work hard. I wasn't stating otherwise. incentive compensation linked

Re: [DNSOP] IPR disclosure related to draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback

> > when i first heard about > i went to people i know inside > google and asked that this be moved into their "royalty-free" category. in > general they (and i suspect verisign also) don't want to constrain pub

Re: [DNSOP] IPR disclosure related to draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback

> Paul Wouters > Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:39 AM > > The same has happened with the IPSec patent from versign. Obvious > prior art and the same unclear license policy. I got scolded at by > versign representatives at one of the last ietfs for pointing this > out. I wo

Re: [DNSOP] IPR disclosure related to draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback

> but until verisign chooses a license regime for this patent, we won't know > how to respond. it is this working group's cultural bias to avoid IPR, which > means that if verisign doesn't self-declare the "royalty-free" option, IETF > will have to engage lawyers and experts to determine whethe

Re: [DNSOP] [TCP] edns-tcp-keepalive, and 5966bis

> Stephane Bortzmeyer > Saturday, February 28, 2015 9:27 AM > [Reflections of the week-end.] > > ... > > Since we always have to manage broken software and network glitches, > DNS programs will have to handle bad clients and servers, anyway. If > so, what is the point o

Re: [DNSOP] [Qname minimisation] Tony Finch's algorithm on zone cut finding implemented

> Stephane Bortzmeyer > Saturday, February 28, 2015 8:20 AM > For those who want to play with the zone cuts (finding them is > necessary for qname minimisation), here is a simple implementation of > appendix A of draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-01: > > https://githu

[DNSOP] [TCP] edns-tcp-keepalive, and 5966bis

[Reflections of the week-end.] There have been some discussions ( or ) in juanary on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive and draft-bellis-dnsop-connection-close. I've

Re: [DNSOP] Agenda for Dallas?

On Feb 28, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > I see we have a > slot on Tuesday but I cannot find a discussion about an agenda. It's > specially important since we have a _lot_ of work on the bench >

[DNSOP] Agenda for Dallas?

I see we have a slot on Tuesday but I cannot find a discussion about an agenda. It's specially important since we have a _lot_ of work on the bench I believe that draft-hoffman-dns-terminol

[DNSOP] [Qname minimisation] Tony Finch's algorithm on zone cut finding implemented

For those who want to play with the zone cuts (finding them is necessary for qname minimisation), here is a simple implementation of appendix A of draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-01: https://github.com/bortzmeyer/my-IETF-work/blob/master/draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation/zonecut.go Implemen

Re: [DNSOP] IPR disclosure related to draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback

From: Paul Vixie Date: 2015-02-28 01:18 To: Niall O'Reilly CC: dnsop Subject: Re: [DNSOP] IPR disclosure related to draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback > thank you alison. but until verisign chooses a license regime for this > patent, we won't know how to respond. it is this working group's cult