On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > There has been no technical discussion of Moreau's proposal. There had
> > been no technical discussion on May 10th, when Austein offficially
> > directed the authors to disregard the proposal.
>
> I see o
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
> There has been no technical discussion of Moreau's proposal. There had
> been no technical discussion on May 10th, when Austein offficially
> directed the authors to disregard the proposal.
I see only one message from Rob Austein dated 10 May 2007. In
There has been no technical discussion of Moreau's proposal. There had
been no technical discussion on May 10th, when Austein offficially
directed the authors to disregard the proposal.
All of the opposition has been FUD and false claims. I have a longer
report in progress detailing these issues.
At Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:47:57 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> Now that the draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming is adopted as as WG work
> item, and that an IPR disclosure has been filed [2], I would request Rob
> to revisit his (premature) directive regarding this work [3], and
> retract it. Than
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Which brings me to my second problem. As nearly as I can tell, there
> are no clear conflict of interest guidelines for working groups in
> general, and the IETF has previously concluded that such a state of
> affairs is a good thing.
I don't know
Dear Andrew and all:
Thanks to Andrew for looking at this. I guess I completely agree with
your analysis.
I regret that a discussion about "conflict of interest" started after
Rob asserted his independence in his wg co-chair role [1].
As far as I am concerned, I presume Rob's good faith whe
At Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:15:04 -0700, I wrote:
>
> This is a call to confirm the decision made at the face to face WG
> meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
> Discussion in Prague showed reasonably strong support and no
> objections, but as always, decisions at fac
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:07:34PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> I'm working on a longer analysis of the issues and the dispute.
I'm becoming frustrated by this discussion for two reasons.
First, there is precious little discussion in this thread of the
proposal on the table -
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides
> > of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG.
>
> What "transaction" are you referring to? Please be specific. I was
> no
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
> There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides
> of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG.
What "transaction" are you referring to? Please be specific. I was
not aware of any exchange of services, money, patents, t
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 07:03:13PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> I have asked the IESG and the ISOC Attorney to intervene in this matter,
> informally.
Let me personally add that I find this a very sad moment in the already
sorry history of DNS standardisation...
Bert
--
http://www.Pow
I have asked the IESG and the ISOC Attorney to intervene in this matter,
informally.
What Olafur says below is just complete nonsense. I also make a living,
consult to companies that seek patents, and serve a non-profit
anti-patent organization. My company also does IT consulting to
companies th
This is getting silly, where Rob works, who Rob works with, who Rob
talks to, are all irrelevant.
Rob is a co-chair of the working group and serves at the pleasure of the AD,
he can be terminated at any moment, if he engages in anything that the AD
perceives as un-professional, un-ethical or just
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > > Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect
> > > his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers.
> >
> > Should Rob recuse himself from *any* matter that Paul's sent an email
> > about? What about opinions Paul may have
> > Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect
> > his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers.
>
> Should Rob recuse himself from *any* matter that Paul's sent an email
> about? What about opinions Paul may have discussed with Rob privately?
> Or just things he
> None of the below makes any difference. We do not know what instructions
> Vixie has given Austein, and we do not need to know.
>
> The considerations for conflict of interest are well established:
[...]
> Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect
> his company, its financial
None of the below makes any difference. We do not know what instructions
Vixie has given Austein, and we do not need to know.
The considerations for conflict of interest are well established:
In the case of a conflict with an employment interest, the employee must
recuse themselves to avoid the
> > Mr. Paul Vixie to ISC, and the subordination relationship that can be
> > inferred from Mr. Paul Vixie's position as ISC president.
>
> Paul has never tried to control what I do as DNSOP WG co-chair, and
> clearly understands the obligations that go with my position. Paul also
> knows me wel
I don't usually bother with refuting slander against me, as I have
better things to do with my time than argue with fools, but one
specific point in a recent posting does call for a response to the WG:
At Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:34:38 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> I bring your attention to the com
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 wor
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,
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
[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
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 t
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 some
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 wo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr Thierry Moreau,
[...]
From here, it seems that your patented ideas are designed to [...]
Some may [...] pay you the fees you desire.
BECAUSE you have chosen to [...]
Do you care that the DNS will be weak?
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
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:28:09AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> 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-base
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 g
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 w
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
paten
> >Anyone who is
> >going to submit proposals for dns technology should not include encumbered
> >IPR.
>
> This is an ideology statement. Patents apply in very diversified fields
> of human activity. In the case of DNS, according to public records,
> Verisign filed patent applications in the provi
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it
It's done. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
Can there be a clarification as to if "i
Dear dnsop participants:
Mr. Paul Vixie made an off-topic post which falls into the IPR rathole
category. Being personally attacked, I take the liberty to povide
background information to dnsop participants, with the hope that Mr.
Paul Vixie's bias is better understood.
I'm not a wgchair or any
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it
It's done. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
Can there be a clarification as to if "implementor" extends to any
user of
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it
It's done. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M
Paul Vixie (vixie) writes:
> though asullivan's answer ("it depends") is probably more accurate. t-m
> has in the past said that he wants IETF to standardize encumbered IPR so
> that he can make money from license fees paid by people who deploy it. i
> think that's offensive screwheadedness and i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thierry Moreau) writes:
> This question is serious, to the extent that the DNSOP activities are
> worth the effort devoted to it by participants. So let me re-prhase the
> question (actually the question had two facets):
>
> Is this proposed wg activity open (i.e. "The IETF h
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 08:01:51AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> Is this proposed wg activity already limited by the message archived at
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html ?
I actually support such a limitation, because it is constrained this
way:
[. .
Rob Austein wrote:
At Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:18:25 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Is this a genuine invitation for open participation, or are the wg
activities subject to the arbitrary censorship directive issued earlier
by you (ref
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.ht
At Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:18:25 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> Is this a genuine invitation for open participation, or are the wg
> activities subject to the arbitrary censorship directive issued earlier
> by you (ref
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html)?
http://
Rob Austein wrote:
This is a call to confirm the decision made at the face to face WG
meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
Is this a genuine invitation for open participation, or are the wg
activities subject to the arbitrary censorship directive issued earlier
This is a call to confirm the decision made at the face to face WG
meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
Discussion in Prague showed reasonably strong support and no
objections, but as always, decisions at face to face meetings are
subject to confirmation on the
44 matches
Mail list logo
