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

Hi Paul:

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. Sending just the x-coordinate of an affine elliptic curve point Q:=(x,y) has been suggested eons ago, where eon > 20 years (possibly, in Koblitz's 1985 paper).

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

Why not even taking the editorial inaccuracies into account?

Rene

(end of discussion for me)

==

I cannot speak for everyone, but I can say why I didn't support it: it would possibly involve IPR hassles. The IPR hassles are not worth it here, in my opinion

It is also openness, about not letting one person derail standards actions, about not unnecessarily encumbering protocols with questionable IPR if it doesn't add much value, and about making progress.

On 19/01/2012 2:30 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Rene Struik wrote:
>
>> So, was the WGLC the one in July 2011?
> Yes. You replied on that thread, according to the WG archives.
>
>> Olaf did not reference that WGLC,
>> which was eons ago (half a year).
> Which part of the word "Last" are you confused about? :-)
>
>> Now, there seem to have been three
>> versions since  2 1/2 weeks, with nothing prior for 5 1/2 months. Some
>> more clarity, except a short line that seems to be out of the blue would
>> be appreciated.
> There was a WGLC with an end date. There were comments during WGLC. Some comments asked for changes, and there were multiple people who supported those changes. The authors (Wouter and I) made those changes. There were some comments from you that asked for extensive changes, and no one supported your request. We didn't make those changes.
>
>> I am curious as to why "nobody" supported squeezing down message sizes.
>> Was this seriously considered? What was the technical rationale for not
>> supporting my modest suggestions.
> I cannot speak for everyone, but I can say why I didn't support it: it would possibly involve IPR hassles. The IPR hassles are not worth it here, in my opinion.
>
>> What is your rationale for not supporting this???
> If one person proposes a technical change to a spec and no one else agrees with them, it is not a good idea to make that change.
>
>> Shouldn't technical merit of comments be discussed openly.
> You did openly discuss the technical merits of your proposal. No one supported your assertions.
>
>> I thought
>> IETF was all about openness.
> No, the IETF is about many things. It is also openness, about not letting one person derail standards actions, about not unnecessarily encumbering protocols with questionable IPR if it doesn't add much value, and about making progress.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>

-- 
email: rstruik.ext@gmail.com
Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658
USA Google voice: +1 (415) 690-7363

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