[DNSOP] Copies of Drafts for draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required?
The datatracker doesn't have these drafts. (why not?) Does anyone have copies of each draft? I'm trying to chart the draft claims and the discussions and disputes, so that I can easily respond to assertions regarding the current incarnation of this draft. Thanks, --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Copies of Drafts for draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required?
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote: The datatracker doesn't have these drafts. (why not?) Does anyone have copies of each draft? I'm trying to chart the draft claims and the discussions and disputes, so that I can easily respond to assertions regarding the current incarnation of this draft. Because those are expired and have been removed from the official Internet-Drafts directory. Multiple places store old versions though, e.g.: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required/ http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/ -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01
On 7-Jun-2007, at 01:20, Mark Andrews wrote: Show me the xml. There should be a way to do a table. t list t0.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 THIS NETWORK *//t t127.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LOOP-BACK NETWORK *//t t254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LINK LOCAL *//t t2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 TEST NET *//t t255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 BROADCAST *//t /list /t There is a way to do a table: texttable ttcolZone/ttcolttcolDescription/ttcol c0.IN-ADDR.ARPA/c/cIPv4 THIS NETWORK/c c127.IN-ADDR.ARPA/ccIPv4 LOOP-BACK NETWORK/c c254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA/ccIPv4 LINK LOCAL/c c2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA/ccIPv4 TEST NET/c c255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA/ccIPv4 BROADCAST/c /texttable There are details in http://xml.resource.org/authoring/draft-mrose- writing-rfcs.html (see section 2.3.1.4). Joe ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Ted Lemon wrote: On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote: Blindly following the above ideology will result in less and less RFCs, hence less network standardization and/or standardization made by entities other than the IETF. Actually, what would result in fewer and fewer RFCs would be people patenting the technology and asking for royalties on what they have patented. It's true that there would be fewer and fewer RFCs if more and more people did this, but that would be an economic result of the activity of those people. Calling the functioning of an ecosystem ideology is just a way of pretending that something you are doing to destroy and replace that ecosystem is fair. It's possible that if you succeed in getting enough patents, some other gruesome ecosystem will arise to replace the ecosystem that has grown around the IETF. You could say that someone who would prefer not to have to attempt to survive in such a polluted ecosystem is an ideologue, but in so saying you are making yourself into an ideologue as well. And then the question becomes, which ideology do we prefer? Like it or not, the current patent regime is somehow rooted in the US constitution, well-entrenched national laws, and treaties both for the fundamental patent system characteristics (e.g. WTO), and for the facilitation and harmonization of patent applications in multiple countries (e.g. PCT). Indeed, there is an ideology behind the current patent regime. You may feel it's gruesome. See the conclusion of a committee chaired by late Georges Washington at http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.8.8 Unfortunetely for the opposing view, the comment period for this committee is closed. So, it's neither a matter with me, nor with a new definition of fair that would apply to a specification merely because it is published as an IETF RFC. These conflicting views has been discussed at length in many fields of human activites. Yet the patent regime is still up and running. So using the term ideology to describe a person's position that disagrees with yours, while perhaps true, adds nothing to the conversation. It is in its fight against the well rooted foundations of the patent system that the IPR unemcumbrance ideology is counter-productive in the present instance. By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote: By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too. An open discussion seems impossible if one of the participants will then go around and try to patent ideas that originated out of such open unfinished discussion. You are forcing discussions to happen in private, to be presented to the IETF as is, so that no IPR claims can be made based on freely shared ideas on the IETF lists. What do you want? Colaborating on internet standards, or building proprietary software algorithms by yourself? You can only pick one. Paul ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Paul Wouters wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote: By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too. An open discussion seems impossible if one of the participants will then go around and try to patent ideas that originated out of such open unfinished discussion. It's a basic characteristic of the patent regime that an inventive idea that is disclosed can not later be appropriated by someone as an invention of his own. So, the above one of the participant would be a bad faith patent applicant. You and I are not aware of such behavior, are we? You are forcing discussions to happen in private, to be presented to the IETF as is, so that no IPR claims can be made based on freely shared ideas on the IETF lists. I respectfully disagree: I am not forcing anything. There is no different status, with respect to the effect of a disclosure in the patent regime, between an idea disclosed in the course of discussion and the end result of discussion. What do you want? Colaborating on internet standards, or building proprietary software algorithms by yourself? You can only pick one. In the present instance, see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05450.html and https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=856 . A general discussion is out of topic. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: OK, 0.02 worth of unsupported personal attacks against me. Out of topic. Counter-productive. Not worth replying. Perhaps the next time you think something is not worth replying to, you could follow that conclusion with what would seem to be the obvious non-action? A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:18:01AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: On 7-Jun-2007, at 01:20, Mark Andrews wrote: Show me the xml. There should be a way to do a table. t list t0.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 THIS NETWORK *//t t127.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LOOP-BACK NETWORK *//t t254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LINK LOCAL *//t t2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 TEST NET *//t t255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 BROADCAST *//t /list /t There is a way to do a table: texttable ttcolZone/ttcolttcolDescription/ttcol c0.IN-ADDR.ARPA/c/cIPv4 THIS NETWORK/c c127.IN-ADDR.ARPA/ccIPv4 LOOP-BACK NETWORK/c c254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA/ccIPv4 LINK LOCAL/c c2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA/ccIPv4 TEST NET/c c255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA/ccIPv4 BROADCAST/c /texttable There are details in http://xml.resource.org/authoring/draft-mrose- writing-rfcs.html (see section 2.3.1.4). JoeA to borrow a phrase: I'm too young for nroff and too old for xml... I'm generation V(i)! --bill ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:24:41AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: OK, 0.02 worth of unsupported personal attacks against me. Out of topic. Counter-productive. Not worth replying. Perhaps the next time you think something is not worth replying to, you could follow that conclusion with what would seem to be the obvious non-action? A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of (good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards development, are being patented by others and then used as leverage to force particular outcomes. Such beliefs are corrosive and distructive to the IETF process and it is not clear how such concerns could be avoided in todays environment. So work is being done outside the IETF, where there is trust. --bill ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Dear colleagues, On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:24:21PM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: It's done. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=856 Thanks. Having read the disclosure, having quickly read the referenced draft draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 including the Appendix A, and having re-read draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming-00, I conclude that draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming-00 is discussing priming _in general_ rather than explicitly in a DNSSEC context. I believe that the DNSSEC issues are important ones, and that that some document related to them would be valuable, but I also think that too much discussion of the DNSSEC context would be a distraction to the overall effort in draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming-00. Therefore, I do not think it critical to add much more DNSSEC discussion, either with reference to draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 or any other source. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bmanning) writes: actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of (good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards development, are being patented by others and then used as leverage to force particular outcomes. Such beliefs are corrosive and distructive to the IETF process and it is not clear how such concerns could be avoided in todays environment. So work is being done outside the IETF, where there is trust. s/IETF/W3C/ and it's mostly valid as well. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote: I agree with your other post that such (IPR related!!??) discussions may prevent dnsop from addressing the on-topic issue, i.e. a consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification. It is not the IPR discussion that is preventing this. It's the IPR. The discussion is on addressing the IPR problem. It is clear that your interest is to not have an IPR discussion and to continue like there is no issue so you can cash your IPR claims. Your claim that this discussion should not be helt because it prevents talking about the real issue is not addressing the problem created by your IPR claims - dropping your IPR claims however, would resolve this issue - at least temporarilly until the IETF can find a structural solution to the problem of IPR poisoning in general. Paul ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Still off-topic, but please let me, for once, provide a constructive answer to a legitimate concern voiced by Bill: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of (good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards development, are being patented by others and then used as leverage to force particular outcomes. Such beliefs are corrosive and distructive to the IETF process and it is not clear how such concerns could be avoided in todays environment. Answer: better understanding of the patent regime, which suggests two obvious avenues: (A) Publish something, e.g. an individual draft -00, on the subject area about which the concern applies, where (every) concievable paths towards a solution are disclosed: existing, adapted from other contexts, on the design bench, or just envisioned. In patent examination terminology, the latter two categories teach innovations directions, so that many potential refined schemes, although not exactly in the publication, are obvious given this publication (e.g. combined with other knowledge from the art). No big worry that the -00 draft expires; it should be still a publication with an acknowledged publication date. I.e. inflate the public domain prior art beyond what is desirable technically. Note: Your mileage may vary depending on who signs the paycheck of this document author. In the free market economy, a genuine invention is an asset that finance management may not want to give away. This is part of the global ecosystem in which IETF operates. (B) Whenever a patent application becomes public (usually 18 months after filing date), bring the inventor or his/her patent agent's attention to whatever prior art exist in the field (you don't need to defer this to litigation). The onus is on the inventor or agent to take such prior art into account (typically making the patent claims less generic as the more general schemes are more likely to be disclosed somewhere). I.e. use the cheaper routes to challenge patent applications. I am not a lawyer (IANAL), but the above are elementary IPR management strategies. Many patent agents may not insist on these: their professional activities are centered where (A) is avoided in favor of potential patent applications by the document author, and/or (B) occurs later in the process, once the paperwork exchange is started between the agent and the patent examiner. Coming back to the issue at hand, I see no need for misconceptions about IPR to detract work on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Thierry Moreau wrote: Coming back to the issue at hand, I see no need for misconceptions about IPR to detract work on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming. Thierry, when people much smarter and more experienced than you have to defend themselves from you by doing work in a way that excludes you from participating, there are two ways to interpret this. One is that they are doing something inappropriate. The other is that you have done something inappropriate. You seem bound and determined to consider only the first of these two possibilities. However, what you are doing, you are doing to people who *invented* the Internet as we know it today. People who did that and gave their work to the public, because they knew that for their inventions to be useful, they had to be freely available. People without whose work you would not even be able to exchange email with a wide group of people all over the world. And now, we are hearing that because of your efforts, open participation in the working group is broken - in order to continue to make their work freely available, it seems that they have to exclude you, because you believe that it's okay to patent whatever you do to participate in the working group, and you want to make a living by so doing. So it could be that it is you who are right, and they who are wrong. But please, consider the other possibility just a bit. It is possible for Thierry to be in the wrong. Really, it is. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
