I'm relying on a memory of a mail conversation from 16 years ago :-( Fortunately, the list archive is around (ftp://munnari.oz.au/big-internet/list-archive) but I really don't have the time to do the search though the archive to find the thread - maybe someone else has both the time and the motivation!
Geoff Paul Francis wrote: > Thanks. I'm still very curious about what went on in Big-I that predates > this. I know lots of ideas were thrown around, and of course some of them > involved tunneling, but I don't recall any that were very similar to VA. In > any event, equipment in the field has evolved enough that this can now be > done, so good to have a fresh look. > > PF > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geoff Huston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:14 AM >> To: Paul Francis >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [GROW] FIB scaling through configuration >> >> I which case I have no further objection for this work to be >> taken on by GROW - indeed, given this response from Paul I >> support this being taken on by GROW. >> >> Thanks very much Paul for your response. >> >> Geoff >> >> >> Paul Francis wrote: >>> You know, I'm being stupid about this. The IPR was established a >>> while back to keep my options open for doing a startup. I've long >>> since given up on that idea, so we'll make the IPR unrestricted and >>> unencumbered, and I'll look into having the IPR claim >> withdrawn altogether. >>> >>> Sorry for the run around. >>> >>> PF >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- >>> *From:* Geoff Huston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> *Sent:* Wed 5/28/2008 3:51 AM >>> *To:* Paul Francis >>> *Cc:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [GROW] FIB scaling through configuration >>> >>> > I need to point out that Cornell owns IPR on this. >>> >>> Even though this precise approach was described and >> discussed in the >>> Big-Internet mailing list back in 1992? For those with >> memories that >>> extend back to then such claims of proprietary ownership of >> the same >>> concept some 16 years later appear to be somewhat ambitious. >>> >>> [As a side note, this IPR stuff is getting to be overwhelming in a >>> number of ways. I have an increasing sympathy for the view that >>> espouses that open standards should work within a scope of >> describing >>> openly available unencumbered technology, and that private >> ownership >>> of a concept with restrictions and encumberences on third party use >>> should take it out of the public realm of open standardisation. But >>> thats a topic for another mailing list of course!] >>> >>> In any case, for the record, I oppose bringing this IPR-encumbered >>> work into GROW. If Cornell are prepared to make a firm >> undertaking to >>> the IETF in the usual manner of unrestricted and >> unencumbered access, >>> or are prepared to withdraw their IPR claim (well, I can >> dream!), then >>> my opposition to this proposal for GROW to take on this >> approach may change. >>> regards, >>> >>> Geoff >>> >> > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
