> 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 need to start the flame-fest / > endless arguments until it looks like there is actually some support for the > idea. i'm trying to uplevel the argument. can we make posting to ietf WG mailing lists contingent on IPR disclosure, and can we make it a moderation principle that IPR'd posts will simply not be published here, ever? my concern is that T-M's encumbered proposals will remove certain approaches from the table. or that once we've all heard one of his ideas, he can claim later that any similar ideas in our work product are based on his proposals. this feels like a "mental contamination" strategy and i'm angry enough about it by now that i'm willing to raise my hand and object, for once and for all. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
