[Warning, this seems an issue for the IPR WG, not for dnsop.]
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 08:02:57PM +,
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> anyone who is going to submit proposals for dns technology should
> not include encumbered IPR.
This leaves open the
Moin!
On 05.06.2007, at 17:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Would adding a note in the Security Considerations section to the
following
effect address this issue for you:
To the extent that the DNS Security Extensions make DNS results
more reliable, deployment of the DNS Security Exte
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 01:02:28PM +0200, Ralf Weber wrote:
> On 05.06.2007, at 17:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >Would adding a note in the Security Considerations section to the
> >following
> >effect address this issue for you:
[. . .]
> Well the intent was more to have it under 4.2 to encou
> > anyone who is going to submit proposals for dns technology should
> > not include encumbered IPR.
>
> This leaves open the issue of futile patents. If we decide "We will
> never standardize a technology for which there is a patent somewhere
> in the world, no matter how futile it is", then, we
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > > The group has repeatedly rejected the claims in the draft that "you
> > > just edited" once it is detailed how the draft supports discredited
> > > claims.
> >
> > I am not sure what your evidence is for this claim (especially since
> > we have see
Dear colleagues,
I have read the document
draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-00. These are my
(somewhat late) comments.
In general, I believe it to be a good document that provides
information to users who may know nothing about the AS112 Project. I
particularly like that it goes to
Howdy,
I finally had a chance to take a serious look at this draft with an
eye toward implementing its recommendations for FreeBSD's default name
server configuration, and noticed that it isn't quite in final form,
so I decided to take a crack at improving the text. Along the way I
have some addit
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it
It's done. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it
It's done. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
Can there be a clarification as to if "implementor" extends to any
user of
Dear dnsop participants:
Mr. Paul Vixie made an off-topic post which falls into the IPR rathole
category. Being personally attacked, I take the liberty to povide
background information to dnsop participants, with the hope that Mr.
Paul Vixie's bias is better understood.
I'm not a wgchair or any
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Doug Barton wrote:
I think this also opens up a question about the motivation for this
draft. Is it primarily to reduce spurious traffic to the roots and/or
AS112 (certainly a noble goal, don't get me wrong), or is it primarily
to aid operators in configuring helpful defaults
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it
It's done. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
Can there be a clarification as to if "i
> >Anyone who is
> >going to submit proposals for dns technology should not include encumbered
> >IPR.
>
> This is an ideology statement. Patents apply in very diversified fields
> of human activity. In the case of DNS, according to public records,
> Verisign filed patent applications in the provi
On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Blindly following the above ideology will result in less and less
RFCs,
hence less network standardization and/or standardization made by
entities other than the IETF.
Actually, what would result in fewer and fewer RFCs would be people
paten
> Howdy,
>
> I finally had a chance to take a serious look at this draft with an
> eye toward implementing its recommendations for FreeBSD's default name
> server configuration, and noticed that it isn't quite in final form,
> so I decided to take a crack at improving the text. Along the way I
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Sullivan) writes:
> I note that in section 2.2.3, we have this:
>
>A zone's name servers should be reachable by all IP transport
>protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use.
>
> I have read differing opinions on whether it is better to have
> protocol-dedi
The datatracker doesn't have these drafts. (why not?)
Does anyone have copies of each draft? I'm trying to chart the draft
claims and the discussions and disputes, so that I can easily respond to
assertions regarding the current incarnation of this draft.
Thanks,
--Dean
--
Av8
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
The datatracker doesn't have these drafts. (why not?)
Does anyone have copies of each draft? I'm trying to chart the draft
claims and the discussions and disputes, so that I can easily respond to
assertions regarding the current incarnation of this draft
18 matches
Mail list logo
