Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollover requirement draft
Thierry Moreau <thierry.moreau@connotech.com> Mon, 06 March 2006 14:49 UTC
From: Thierry Moreau <thierry.moreau@connotech.com>
Subject: Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollover requirement draft
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:49:52 -0500
Lines: 85
References: <440B18B2.2040500@connotech.com> <200603051150.58807.Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 06 15:20:06 2006
Return-path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no version=3.1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Namedroppers <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <200603051150.58807.Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20140418072136.2560.84825.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>
In a long post, Ted Lemon wrote: > > [... intro and vegetarian restaurant ...] > > So it's not appropriate for you to frame the discussion of the patent on your > technique for key rollover in terms of value. > The value in DNSSEC that I refer is from no deployment to some deployment, and *not* from no specifications/working-code to some specifications/working-code. The latter is where most of the money has been spent so far, in the collaborative mode that you describe. > [...] > And frankly the main thing that's prevented DNSSEC from being deployed is > people trying to figure out how they can make money from it. Generally > speaking, the answer has been "exclude most domain names, because the owners > of those domains can't afford to pay what we want to charge." > There is a cost structure associated with the DNSSEC deployment. The benefits are accrued to the resolver side, and the bulk of the costs are incurred on the nameserver side. > > [...] > > The fear that I have, and that perhaps others in this working group share, is > that you want a tax on every DNS lookup. I've seen many people ask, "what > is your intention with respect to this patent? How do you intend to license > it?" You haven't said anything about this that I can recall seeing - please > correct me if I am wrong. > See http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2005/msg01694.html and http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2005/msg01804.html Some details might need to be updated, but the main ideas remain. > > [... about "the cultural norm of the IETF" ...] > I take good note of this. > We aren't culturally okay with > monetizing mainstream protocols. > However, DNS name registration and nameserver operations is an industry which is even studied by OECD economists. There is thus a mismatch between the cultural norm of the IETF and deployment contingencies. > [...] I don't know to which extent your post relates to draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements-00.txt, but anyway thanks for it. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: thierry.moreau@connotech.com -- to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
- Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollover re… Thierry Moreau
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Ted Lemon
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Paul Vixie
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Paul Vixie
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Paul Vixie
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Hilarie Orman
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Ben Laurie
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Alex Bligh
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Thierry Moreau
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Thierry Moreau
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Paul Vixie
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Paul Vixie
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Thierry Moreau
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… bmanning
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Matt Larson
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Paul Vixie
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Thierry Moreau
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Thierry Moreau
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Paul Vixie
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Wes Hardaker
- ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberanc… Olaf M. Kolkman
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Damien Miller
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Edward Lewis
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Olaf M. Kolkman
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Damien Miller
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… william(at)elan.net
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… bmanning
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR , response #2 Edward Lewis
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Edward Lewis
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Simon Josefsson
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Rob Austein
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Ted Lemon
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Ted Lemon
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Thierry Moreau
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Ted Lemon
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Robert Story
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Thierry Moreau
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Wes Hardaker
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Wes Hardaker
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Suresh Krishnaswamy
- Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollove… Suresh Krishnaswamy
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Mike StJohns
- Re: ISSUE 1: IPR was Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumbe… Thierry Moreau