US patent 5473599

Wed May 7 21:57:01 UTC 2014

Todd,

On May 7, 2014, at 4:44 PM, TGLASSEY <tglassey at earthlink.net> wrote:
> The issue Jared is needing a consensus in a community where that may be impossible to achieve because of differing agendas - so does that mean that the protocol should not exist because the IETF would not grant it credence? Interesting.

Err, no.

We're talking about a group that chose to squat on an existing assignment because they apparently didn't like the fact that the existing assignment had asserted intellectual property rights.

As far as i can tell, it wasn't that the IETF would not grant CARP credence -- the IETF rules for IP protocol number assignment require either Standards Action or IESG Consensus. Did the OpenBSD developers even bother to document their protocol so the IESG could evaluate their request?

However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their protocol and requested an IESG action and was refused. Do you believe that would justify squatting on an already assigned number?

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140507/a79feba9/attachment.sig>