Re: US patent 5473599

[Bill Fenner <fenner () gmail com>]

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Henning Brauer <hb-nanog () bsws de> wrote:

> * Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> [2014-05-08 04:36]:
> > I don’t believe for one second that the IESG refused to deal with ‘em.
>
> you're free to believe whatever you want and ignore facts.
>
> > I do believe the IESG did not hand them everything they wanted on a
> > silver platter in contravention of the established consensus process
> > and that they failed to gain the consensus they wanted as easily as
> > they hoped.
>
> lie.

I was the IESG member responsible for the VRRP working group when the
OpenBSD developer (I'm sorry, Henning, I forget if it was you or someone
else) came to a VRRP WG meeting and demanded that the IETF handle the
patent issue with VRRP.  We described the IETF's IPR process and that the
policy is explicitly not to do what was being requested, and the response
was more or less "well, then we'll have to fix the problem for you".  At
later meetings I heard buzz about how the developers intended CARP to
interfere with VRRP, with the philosophical position that VRRP wasn't a
protocol.

When I first saw the claims that IANA told OpenBSD that you had to have
deep pockets to get a protocol number, I asked the IANA to share the
original request and any related correspondence with the IESG.  They could
not find any such correspondence in the raw archive of the iana@iana.orgmailbox.

While the OpenBSD project has done an incredible amount of good on the
Internet, the version of events described by the 3.5 release song does not
match my personal experiences.

  Bill