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

le, better service 617 344 9000 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:21:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Olaf M. Kolkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Softwar

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

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote: > 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

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

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote: > 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

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] "Rat Hole Alert" [*] Please stop this discussion. For those not on namedroppers (skipped from the CC), the full context of that quote can be found in: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/named

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: 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: 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: 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