IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wkumari-dnsop-ttl-stretching-00.txt

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Fri, 06 January 2017 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40560129591 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:47:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55IByQ3_riWI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7E8A12958C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mbp-4.local ([IPv6:2620:11a:c081:20:dda:4b57:34ab:34f]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v06Hlgpk004768 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 6 Jan 2017 17:47:42 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: nagasaki.bogus.com: Host [IPv6:2620:11a:c081:20:dda:4b57:34ab:34f] claimed to be mbp-4.local
To: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
References: <147909930902.10318.12934239778853597228.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHw9_iK2mrzjpew2-jH9HTxoxGQT2DESzFt2G_iPQDOjq2KAEw@mail.gmail.com> <20161127111037.GA10721@jurassic> <CAHw9_iJXOEFoXLM-8XspFQBiHKZtpP6djFr6YR-Zd+A7NG5P0A@mail.gmail.com> <20170106172545.GA2684@jurassic>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <ad86d5d0-40d4-0470-a369-37ab7af2937b@bogus.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 09:47:41 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:50.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/50.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170106172545.GA2684@jurassic>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="scuUt9Or43LLaEQtcgDb661onNeMsW7ow"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NCqB1yoeuFIDT2CrF4TQTWwk8H8>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wkumari-dnsop-ttl-stretching-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 17:47:45 -0000

On 1/6/17 9:25 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:48:59AM +0000, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>> (2) In a feature implemented for Unbound:
>>>
>>> - Unbound first checks cache
>>>
>>> - If a stale answer is found, its TTL is set to 0, and the cache entry
>>>   is served
>>>
>>> - If a stale answer is found, Unbound starts something similar to
>>>   prefetch/HAMMER.
>>>
>>>> NOTE: I believe that there may be (non-Google) IP associated with
>>>> this. A lawyer will be filing the IPR disclosure later today (time
>>>> zone differences, etc).
>>> The two approaches are somewhat different, and so at least one of them
>>> may not be covered by this patent.
>>>
>> Yup. The IPR disclose was about IPR belonging to Xerocole. Xerocole was
>> acquired by Akamai in March 2015. I believe that David will discuss the IPR
>> with his employer.
> Please explore if this patent can be circumvented without affecting the
> goal of the draft, so that it does not apply. It would be better than
> licensing it under some legal terms.
IMHO this can be better expressed as a preference for unencumbered
technology.

the working group should not as far as I am concerned get buried in how
precisely to achieve that.
> Consequently, if the patented method is strictly adopted, please include
> an explanation of why it could not be circumvented.
>
> 		Mukund
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email