On Aug 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 EDT, Owen DeLong said: >> You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain rights >> somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in nature and >> contrary to the intent of number stewardship all the way back to >> Postel's original notebook. Postel himself is on record stating that >> disused addresses should be returned. > > We've written RFCs that explain SHOULD != MUST. > > Keep in mind that he said that back in a long-bygone era where sending an > e-mail asking "If you're not going to deploy that address range, can you give > it back just because it's the Right Thing To Do, even though there's a chance > that 15 years from now, you'll be able to sell it for megabucks" didn't get 53 > levels of management and lawyers involved. > > On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:33:34 EDT, Owen DeLong said: >> A contract which clarifies that you still don't have rights you never >> had does not constitute relinquishing those non-existent rights no >> matter how many times you repeat yourself. > > Ahh - but here's the kicker. For the contract to clarify the status of that > right, it *is* admitting that the right exists and has a definition (even if > not spelled out in the contract). A non-existent thing can't be the subject > of a contract negotiation. So in the contract, you can agree that you don't > have right XYZ, and clarify that you understand you never had right XYZ. > But it doesn't make sense if XYZ is nonexistent. > There are lots of contracts which clarify that inaccuracies previously perceived as rights are, indeed, and always were, fictitious in nature. That is possible in a contract and is not as uncommon as one would wish it were.
It does not magically lend credence to the prior fiction. Owen