Hi Tim On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:00:39PM -0500, tjw ietf wrote: > Mukund, > > While I agree with you, Joel has the right guidance on this; but also > knowing the authors fairly well, > I feel they would not send us down a road that will box the work into a > corner.
Yes, it was not in any way a statement about these particular authors.
I know the two authors are trying to work together to document something
which will be beneficial for DNS. Having spoken to DCL about this in
Seoul (I told DCL that Warren wanted to make a draft for this and they
should get in touch), I don't think he has any specific interest to
incorporate a patented idea. Their interest is in having the details of
TTL stretching worked out.
However, when there is any person X introducing a specificiation which
incorporates a patent he/she owns, it could appear self-serving. In this
case, isn't it due process to question if any other approaches are
possible? (I say this in general terms - not specifically about this
author or his company.)
TTL stretching is a simple problem (it isn't a complicated area such as
a media codec). Exploring whether the method can be implemented without
being encumbered by the known patent wouldn't take a lot of time or
discussion.
This isn't even a published draft yet, so we don't know what the authors
may come up with.
There have been some noises from the nethers that the patent could be
avoided with minor modifications. I'm encouraging the authors again to
do some exploring. :P
Mukund
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
