[171632] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: US patent 5473599
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu May 8 01:00:26 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140507231953.GJ29444@hezmatt.org>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 19:33:45 -0700
To: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On May 7, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
>> However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their =
protocol
>> and requested an IESG action and was refused. Do you believe that =
would
>> justify squatting on an already assigned number?
>=20
> I'm going to go with "yes", just to be contrary. At the point that =
the IESG
> refused to deal with 'em, they've effectively been ostracised from =
"the
> Internet community", and thus they are under no obligation to act =
within the
> rules and customs of that community.
>=20
> - Matt
I don=92t believe for one second that the IESG refused to deal with =91em.=
I do believe the IESG did not hand them everything they wanted on a =
silver platter in contravention of the established consensus process and =
that they failed to gain the consensus they wanted as easily as they =
hoped.
I=92d say they are not, in fact ostracized or even disenfranchised and =
that their abrogation of their obligations to act within the rules and =
customs of the internet community in developing network protocols for IP =
is more like a temper tantrum than a legitimate grievance.
Owen
