Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming
Florian Weimer wrote: I'm confused. I thought the message mentioned by Thierry is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and Rob's reply is contained in [EMAIL PROTECTED]; the latter is a reply in all relevant senses I can currently think of. Perhaps there was another message to the four authors that hasn't been Cc:ed to the mailing list, which was actually private and not merely off the record (or whatever), but I can't infer that from Rob's I was working on the theory that private e-mail message from me to the four authors meant off the list. If the note was more public than that -- as your note and Lucy's suggests, and yes I saw that cited note -- than the issue of private is moot. My real point, of course, is that it doesn't matter. The question would appear to be whether there is serious working group consensus to go counter to Rob's default decision and, instead, to discuss the merits of the topic -- as opposed to niggling process nuances. Based on my own reading of 12 hours of postings, there so far appears not to be. d/ ps. FWIW, I decided to dive in on this because I have nothing to do with the particular topic -- and therefore no biases about it -- and I like seeing wg chairs try to make progress, albeit in a well-documented manner, such as Rob has done. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
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 PV that IPR disclosures must accompany all proposals, including mailing list PV posts, and the moderator ought to simply squash anything that's encumbered. I think the rules on IPR are already well defined in some RFC, and it's way off-topic for this mailing list. I understand your frustration, and regardless of my own opinions of Mr. Moreau and his efforts, I think there are a few reasons why your post was unnecessary: - There hasn't been any messages indicating support, which means that there's not really anything to object to yet. - Mr Moreau indicated he was willing to offer a free license for use of the idea: In this context, I intend to file an IPR disclosure statement offering a free, universal, non-exclusive, time-unlimited license to use the above idea (that is conveniently defined by reference to the claims as they stand) for DNS root zone file publishing by any DNS root zone operator, conditional to the approval of your draft with the above idea included. 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.) 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. -- Robert Story SPARTA signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
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 ^ operators is a bit troubling.) To reassure you, the patent application claims neither validating resolver process not validating resolver software media nor validating resolver system. If it were doing any of this, the spirit of the pre-announced IPR disclosure is to make resolver free license for DNSSEC root priming purposes, so the IPR wording would be adjusted accordingly. Do you see the priming draft scope to cover anything beyond priming the DNS root? I didn't read anything in this direction. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
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 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
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 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt PV i'm trying to uplevel the argument. can we make posting to ietf WG mailing PV lists contingent on IPR disclosure, and can we make it a moderation principle PV that IPR'd posts will simply not be published here, ever? I don't think so. 3979 does say that posting to the mailing list is an IETF Contribution (Section 1.c). Section 6.2 encourages 'timely disclosure' of IPR (which, to give him credit, Mr. Moreau is very good at). PV my concern is that T-M's encumbered proposals will remove certain approaches PV from the table. or that once we've all heard one of his ideas, he can claim PV later that any similar ideas in our work product are based on his proposals. PV this feels like a mental contamination strategy and i'm angry enough about PV it by now that i'm willing to raise my hand and object, for once and for all. I understand, and IANAL, but I don't think that whether or not we've heard his ideas has an bearing on whether or not he can later claim an something is infringing. So, from that perspective, it's better that we know what the IPR claims are, so we can stay away from those areas if need be. Also, Section 2 of 3979 says: RFC 2026, Section 10 established three basic principles regarding the IETF dealing with claims of Intellectual Property Rights: [...] (b) the IETF following normal processes can decide to use technology for which IPR disclosures have been made if it decides that such a use is warranted (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have the information needed to make an informed decision about the use of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover the technology under discussion. And in Section 8: In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses. So, in theory, the idea could be so good that it would be accepted, IPR and all. Unlikely, I know, but possible. Given the posture in 3979, I think any attempt to censor contributions based on IPR status could likely be appealed by some arcane IETF process, wasting even more time, and likely resulting the the censorship being overruled. Like I said, I completely understand your position, but the process is supposed to be open. 3979 even explicitly acknowledges that IPR claims can be in some cases be disingenuous, i.e., made to affect the IETF Standards Process rather than to inform. -- Robert Story SPARTA signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
