On 11/11/2009, at 11:32 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
george,
if you think that the two drafts cover much the same technology, and you
accept the sad reality that sometimes technologies in the ietf suffer
ipr attacks, can you explain why are you angry that the same ipr attack
is directed at the two drafts you think are similar?
randy
If you think that, then say so.
Please don't "put words in my mouth" Randy. I don't agree with these statements and I don't want anyone to believe that because YOU said it, that it characterises how I feel.
The roa-validation draft I co-authored covered semantics of a ROA, while the other draft appeared to toe-tread on this work and then describe a mechanism of implementation. From my perspective there is an important distinction that was mentioned on the WG meeting on Monday between semantic interpretation and mechanism. So I disagree with your opening assertion.
I think we have a conceptual problem here.
You see two drafts, both 'victims' of an IPR attack.
I see a different thing. I see a causal chain
1) a draft is written by Geoff and myself in 2008.
2) in 2009 a draft is authored by Cisco and others.
3) in 2009 that draft is marked as having IPR claims attached to it, by Cisco. ie, they claim IPR over a draft *of their own authorship*
4) later in 2009 our original 2008 draft is notified it now is covered by these IPR claims. This was delivered to me after the initial lodgement relating to the Cisco authored draft. It appears to be an afterthought.
Again, can I stress that this is my own personal view.
-George
