Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming

2007-05-11 Thread Dave Crocker
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

Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming

2007-05-11 Thread Robert Story
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

Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming

2007-05-11 Thread Thierry Moreau
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

Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming

2007-05-11 Thread Paul Vixie
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

Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming

2007-05-11 Thread Robert Story
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