On 08/09/2013 06:25 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: >> Besides, there are IPRs on the CGA algorithm... but RFC4941 itself doesn't > have >> any. SO this document would essentially IPR-encumber >> RFC4941 -- the farther that you can get from that, the better, I'd say. > :-) > > CGA has IPR but it does not prevent the implementation of it. So, no worry > about that.
I believe your underestimating IPRs, and also think that introduing an IPR to RFC4941 (as this document is indirectly doing) is an extremely bad idea. > In addition, this algorithm is pseudo-CGA as I had to change > some inputs so nobody can claim about IPR for this algorithm. :-) I won't fight this one with you, Hosnieh. You have received my input. It's up to you what you do with it. Cheers, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
