Re: US patent 5473599

[David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>]

Todd,

On May 7, 2014, at 4:44 PM, TGLASSEY <tglassey () 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail