Model patent license (RE: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denieddiscussion] )

--On 8. september 2005 20:08 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I didn't see the original note -- if it was from whom I think it was, my killfile took care of that -- but for a more authoritative description of the situation, see the first two paragraphs of Section 2 of

RE: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denieddiscussion]

> I didn't see the original note -- if it was from whom I think it was, > my killfile took care of that -- but for a more authoritative > description of the situation, see the first two paragraphs of > Section 2 of RFC 3669. Without wanting to engage the dispute ove minutes I think that it woul

Was: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

Dave Crocker wrote: > I've lost track of the procedures for formally taking > exception to ad hominem attacks You have collected the related documents on this page: Maybe add 3683 (BCP 83) to the collection, just in case. If something with the re

Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: > Neverheless if I understand it, it has always been a position of IETF > to consider patented technology as being less preferable then patented > for standardization (ok, it also has a lot to do with kind of licese > patened technology has and if its

Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "william(at)elan > .net" writes: > > > >On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > >>> [Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad > >>> movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF ad

Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

Folks, I've lost track of the procedures for formally taking exception to ad hominem attacks, but I think we (the IETF) are overdue in needing to get quite strict about enforcing that requirement, and doing the enforcement in a timely fashion.l We simply must purge patterns of personal abuse

Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

Mr Crocker. I know you'd rather not give credit to anyone you disagree with, which I suppose leaves only a preference to plagarize the work of others and give undue credit to someone else, say, Vixie [ala the SPF/RMX plagarism in which Vixie was improperly credited for the idea and the real contrib

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

On Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:15:08 PM +0200 Juergen Schoenwaelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:40:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: Authentication is sometimes symmetric; it is not in the case of passwords. For authentication methods like public key or GSS, it

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

Hi Juergen, > 2) It is important to talk about ssh and to not reduce the problem to >just TCP. ... This is very true. Your SNMP-over-TCP (RFC 3430) is still based on each message carrying all of its own security. In contrast, the not yet complete proposal for SNMP-over-SSH is different beca

Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "william(at)elan .net" writes: > >On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote: > >>> [Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad >>> movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent >>> position. >> >> my memory is slipping

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:40:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > Authentication is sometimes symmetric; it is not in the case of > passwords. For authentication methods like public key or GSS, it is > reasonably symmetric. The networking boxes I have access to all use password authentication becau

Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote: [Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent position. my memory is slipping worse that I thought. i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being p

Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

[Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent position. my memory is slipping worse that I thought. i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded. -- d/ Dave Crocker Br

RE: ISMS working group

At 02:41 PM 9/8/2005, Nelson, David wrote: Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that SNMP must always work across Firewalls and NATs. The original objection to the proposed charter was that it did not include support for "Call Home" functionality. I can see how Call Home would solve the NA

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

> "Juergen" == Juergen Schoenwaelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Juergen> 2) It is important to talk about ssh and to not reduce the problem to Juergen>just TCP. As far as I understand ssh, authentication is not Juergen>symmetric because ssh has a clear buildin client/serv

Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

[CC'd to the main IETF list] [Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent position. I took my position pragmatically on the basis that the IETF should consider patented technology intelligently on a cas

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:30:28PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > Note that the mandatory to implement solution for netconf is based on > ssh and does not support call home. 1) I see lots of people using tools like MIB browsers, snmp command line tools called from fancy scripts, monitoring packag

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

> "Tom" == Tom Petch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom> I think that there is subtext that is missing here. Tom> Call Home was declared out of scope, more or less, for isms Tom> before the decision to use SSH was taken (the suggestion was Tom> made on the isms list to set up a B

Vint Cerf joins Google

There is news, and, from time to time, wonderful news. This wonderful news. -Gene Gaines From www.forbes.com Faces In The News Google Hires Internet Legend Vint Cerf David M. Ewalt, 09.08.05, 12:06 PM ET Cerf's up: Google says it's boosting the company's already strong geek cred by hiring Vi

RE: ISMS working group

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that SNMP must always work across Firewalls and NATs. The original objection to the proposed charter was that it did not include support for "Call Home" functionality. I can see how Call Home would solve the NAT problem, at least on a sporadic basis. The

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

Tom Petch - Original Message - From: "Keith McCloghrie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Eliot Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF Discussion" Sent:

RE: ISMS working group

Ken, I appreciated your posting but I surmise that what we may have here is a divergence in world views. I suspect that many readers of your and Eliot's postings view the current Internet topology as consisting of autonomous systems linked to the Internet via BGP connections and perimeter-defense

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

I agree with Eliot on this subject. From: Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: September 6, 2005 7:37:01 AM HST To: IETF Discussion , nanog@merit.edu, iesg@ietf.org Subject: ISMS working group and charter problems Dear Communities, I need your help to correct for an impending mistake by th

ISMS working group

Firewalls are a ubiquitous feature of my everyday life, as is NAT. My home is behind a NAT-ing firewall; my laptop has its own firewall; every time I travel I rely on that firewall in hot spots (such as starbucks); I run VirtualPC on my Mac, which has a firewall and NAT translation; my par

Re: Last call comments on LTRU registry and initialization documents

--On Wednesday, 07 September, 2005 01:10 +0200 Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > >> (ii) either put the initialization draft on the standards >> track with it or publish it as informational and use the >> downref procedure, > > That's a formal point: The ini

Re: ISMS working group

On Sep 7, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: The call home solution doesn't help with the problem of the _manager_ being behind a NAT. It only applies to situations where the manager is at a fixed location on a globally-addressable network and the managed device is behind a NAT o

Fwd: ISMS working group and charter problems

What he said... Firewalls are a fact of life; ignoring their existence is silly. Regardless of whether this solution is THE appropriate one, the problem needs to be addressed. -r --- Begin Forward --- Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:37:01 +0200 From: Eliot Lear <

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

Keith McCloghrie wrote: My concerns with the charter are: will it help to have the public discussion include a candidate revision to the charter, so that folks can see concretely what will be changed? -- d/ Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ...

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

> > BTW, nothing about your note explains to me why you think that this > > mechanism should be defined in a Security area WG that is working on a > > completely separable problem. The intent of ISMS is for SNMP to share common security infrastructure, and in particular, common security infrast

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

Tom Petch - Original Message - From: "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Juergen Quittek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "IETF Discussion" Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:10 PM Subject: Re: ISMS working group and charter problems > At 09:14 AM 9/8/2005, Juergen Quittek wrote: > >--On

RE: ISMS working group and charter problems

Daniel Senie writes... > Based on your email, the consensus of the group is that TCP is good > enough, since it'll only be interesting to manage networks that are > operating cleanly. I can't imagine that's what the WG really > concluded, but that's how your email reads. It seems to me that the

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

At 09:14 AM 9/8/2005, Juergen Quittek wrote: --On 9/7/2005 6:49 PM -0400 Sam Hartman wrote: "Fleischman," == Fleischman, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Fleischman,> I believe that network management is too important a Fleischman,> functionality to be designed such that it can only b

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

--On 9/7/2005 6:49 PM -0400 Sam Hartman wrote: "Fleischman," == Fleischman, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Fleischman,> I believe that network management is too important a Fleischman,> functionality to be designed such that it can only be Fleischman,> usable within highly confin