US patent 5473599
mpalmer at hezmatt.org
Thu May 8 02:39:57 UTC 2014
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:33:45PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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.
> I don’t believe for one second that the IESG refused to deal with ‘em.
Neither do I. That wasn't the question I was answering, though -- the
scenario described was "assume that...".
More information about the NANOG