Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming

On 11 May 2007 04:14:57 + Paul wrote: PV> can someone who followed the POISED effort please explain IETF's policies PV> around restricted IPR? [...] so why isn't there a rule against PV> submitting drafts covered by restrictive IPR in the first place? PV> PV> [...] there ought to be a rule

Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming

Mr Story: Thanks for looking into this. See my technical comment/question below: Robert Story wrote: [...] I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for accepting encumbered ideas. (Although the restriction to root zone

Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming

> I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for accepting > encumbered ideas. (Although the restriction to root zone operators is a bit > troubling.) yes. (also, TAKREM was offered free for GPL implementators, and so, worthless.) > Anyways, the basic idea is that there's no

Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming

On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:11:16 + Paul wrote: PV> > I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for accepting btw, the IPR RFC is 3979 PV> i'm trying to uplevel the argument. can we make posting to ietf WG mailing PV> lists contingent on