nanog mailing list archives
Re: US patent 5473599
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer () hezmatt org>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 09:19:53 +1000
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their protocol and requested an IESG action and was refused. Do you believe that would justify squatting on an already assigned number?
I'm going to go with "yes", just to be contrary. At the point that the IESG refused to deal with 'em, they've effectively been ostracised from "the Internet community", and thus they are under no obligation to act within the rules and customs of that community. - Matt
Current thread:
- Re: US patent 5473599, (continued)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Nick Hilliard (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Nick Hilliard (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Geraint Jones (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Alain Hebert (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (May 06)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Owen DeLong (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 TGLASSEY (May 07)
- RE: US patent 5473599 Leo Vegoda (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 David Conrad (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Matt Palmer (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Rob Seastrom (May 07)
- Please moderate yourselves, was: Re: US patent 5473599 joel jaeggli (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Robert Drake (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Owen DeLong (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Job Snijders (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (May 08)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Owen DeLong (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Matt Palmer (May 07)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (May 08)