IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Summary WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-ecdsa

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 19 January 2012 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA8521F86CE; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:59:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1327010376; bh=Zmb+jJipSt21fMOgBYPOO36K/FyUUVfj3LdhjmpDL2A=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=stv5G63oISJiPBoyy33X+o5u0fm8wJwMGlVQGv5z9YrVqBUvxBX4ASyeiGMEuJ5zS g2CYNhTf97vzk/fYPDvmsA4mFkuhg5b0D3720yubEN4vifPiFgqdZkkoRzchTJm7th ZdTx6oMa64qXy7xD/EIqCGW2IwZKCDsHTQCJyMWY=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660B321F86CE for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:59:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UTaCTusIKJu5 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:59:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08E721F86C5 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.103] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0JLxTa3000913 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:59:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F187B0F.90404@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:59:31 -0800
Message-Id: <367F8646-093A-49E8-81A0-AA65ADFBA41A@vpnc.org>
References: <4F185979.1060105@ogud.com> <4F186400.8010604@gmail.com> <7274B0C0-4BB3-4611-B495-91B123F0AECA@vpnc.org> <4F186AFB.1050702@gmail.com> <492A6661-39EF-4437-9050-4062379BD530@vpnc.org> <4F187B0F.90404@gmail.com>
To: Rene Struik <rstruik.ext@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: DNSEXT Working Group <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Summary WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-ecdsa
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

On Jan 19, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Rene Struik wrote:

> I am not a lawyer, but I honestly do not see the IPR flags (or ghosts?) you seem to see in just about any technical suggestion.

Fine. I do see IPR issues, and so do others. Why should your single voice be more valid than our group of voices, particularly on a subject where none of us can prove anything either way?

> It seems that one can block any change to one's own drafts by raising fear, uncertainty, and doubt about IPR ghosts that are not there, and purportedly triggered by suggestions by others who take time to review this on technical merit and that seem ill-founded.

You are badly misrepresenting what happened. You made a proposal *that no one else supported*. No one "blocked" your proposed change.

> If you believe I am wrong here, please communicate with me offline here.

You making this offer in public is disingenuous: you and I *have* had this discussion offline, both when you were a Certicom employee and afterwards. Pretending that we didn't already have the discussion, or that having the discussion again even though neither of us have any better facts would be valuable, is not useful to advancing this document.

--Paul Hoffman

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email