[171634] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: US patent 5473599
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Palmer)
Thu May 8 03:25:27 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 12:39:57 +1000
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <F73B52B4-8CAC-4FE7-805C-ED21059BD821@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:33:45PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> I don’t believe for one second that the IESG refused to deal with ‘em.
Neither do I. That wasn't the question I was answering, though -- the
scenario described was "assume that...".
- Matt
