Please moderate yourselves, was: Re: US patent 5473599
joelja at bogus.com
Thu May 8 02:00:37 UTC 2014
Notwithstanding any legitimate or illegitimate grievance associated with
the sordid history of carp / vrrp / the us patent system / BSD forks
and their respective participants.
It's time to take a long weekend.
On 5/7/14, 8:47 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
> Matt Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> writes:
>> 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.
> The bar for an informational RFC is pretty darned low. I don't see
> anything in the datagram nature of "i'm alive, don't pull the trigger
> yet" that would preclude a UDP packet rather than naked IP. Hell,
> since it's not supposed to leave the LAN, one could even get a
> different ethertype and run entirely outside of IP. Of course, the
> organization that has trouble coming up with the bucks for an OUI
> might have trouble coming up with the (2014 dollars) $2915 for a
> publicly registered ethertype too.
> Must be a pretty horrible existence ("I pity the fool"?) to live on
> donated resources but lack the creativity to figure out a way to run a
> special fund raiser for an amount worthy of a Scout troop bake sale.
> Makes you wonder what the OpenBSD project could accomplish if they had
> smart people who could get along with others to the point of shaking
> them down for tax-deductible donations, doesn't it?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 308 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the NANOG