Re: US patent 5473599

[Rob Seastrom <rs () seastrom com>]

Matt Palmer <mpalmer () 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?

-r