Please moderate yourselves, was: Re: US patent 5473599

[joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

Notwithstanding any legitimate or illegitimate grievance associated with
the sordid history of carp / vrrp / the us patent system /  BSD forks
and their respective participants.

It's time to take a long weekend.

thanks
joel

On 5/7/14, 8:47 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
> Matt Palmer <mpalmer () hezmatt org> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> The bar for an informational RFC is pretty darned low.  I don't see
> anything in the datagram nature of "i'm alive, don't pull the trigger
> yet" that would preclude a UDP packet rather than naked IP.  Hell,
> since it's not supposed to leave the LAN, one could even get a
> different ethertype and run entirely outside of IP.  Of course, the
> organization that has trouble coming up with the bucks for an OUI
> might have trouble coming up with the (2014 dollars) $2915 for a
> publicly registered ethertype too.
>
> Must be a pretty horrible existence ("I pity the fool"?) to live on
> donated resources but lack the creativity to figure out a way to run a
> special fund raiser for an amount worthy of a Scout troop bake sale.
> Makes you wonder what the OpenBSD project could accomplish if they had
> smart people who could get along with others to the point of shaking
> them down for tax-deductible donations, doesn't it?
>
> -r

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature