US patent 5473599
owen at delong.com
Thu May 8 02:33:45 UTC 2014
On May 7, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Matt Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
>> 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?
> I'm going to go with "yes", just to be contrary. At the point that the IESG
> refused to deal with 'em, they've effectively been ostracised from "the
> Internet community", and thus they are under no obligation to act within the
> rules and customs of that community.
> - Matt
I don’t believe for one second that the IESG refused to deal with ‘em.
I do believe the IESG did not hand them everything they wanted on a silver platter in contravention of the established consensus process and that they failed to gain the consensus they wanted as easily as they hoped.
I’d say they are not, in fact ostracized or even disenfranchised and that their abrogation of their obligations to act within the rules and customs of the internet community in developing network protocols for IP is more like a temper tantrum than a legitimate grievance.
More information about the NANOG