nanog mailing list archives
Re: US patent 5473599
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer () hezmatt org>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 12:39:57 +1000
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:33:45PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 7, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Matt Palmer <mpalmer () 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...". - Matt
Current thread:
- Re: US patent 5473599, (continued)
- Re: US patent 5473599 David Conrad (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Matt Palmer (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Rob Seastrom (May 07)
- Please moderate yourselves, was: Re: US patent 5473599 joel jaeggli (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Robert Drake (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Owen DeLong (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Job Snijders (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Owen DeLong (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Matt Palmer (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Bill Fenner (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Randy Bush (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 sthaug (May 06)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Eygene Ryabinkin (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Rob Seastrom (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Gary Buhrmaster (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Saku Ytti (May 08)