Subject: Clarifications about status of TAKREM proposal for automated TAK rollover

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:35:50 -0400

Dear all:

(1) The TAKREM proposal is actually made of two drafts, i.e. 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draft-moreau-dnsext-sdda-rr-02.txt and 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draft-moreau-dnsext-takrem-dns-02.txt 
(only the latter was referenced in the DNSEXT chairman message asking 
for comparative review of alternatives, 
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg00829.html). 
FYI, the draft draft-moreau-dnsext-sdda-rr-02 formalized TAK lifetime 
management somehow, e.g. with the notion of "obituary resource record."

(2) The "no derivative clause" (in draft-moreau-dnsext-takrem-dns-02 
only) appeared in the document almost by accident. It pertains to IETF 
publishing activities (IETF document versus independent RFC submission). 
Under the principle of "if it's not broken, don't fix it," I have no 
incentive to remove it at this point in the discussions.

(3) The reviews of TAK rollover alternatives (more precisely the reviews 
of TAK rollover alternatives that the DNSEXT wg chairmen should consider 
for consensus building) should abide by the instructions to consider 
"the requirement for non-IPR as _one_ _of_ _the_ _tradeoffs_." 
(http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg00370.html), 
which implies that the TAKREM proposal for automated TAK rollover should 
be reviewed. Given the intensity of prevailing IPR-aversion, I am 
skeptical that this will actually occur, but the DNSEXT chairman words 
are at stake. In this respect, Suresh deserves credit for his 
comprehensive analysis in 
http://www.dnssec-tools.org/docs/trust-anchor-comparison-v02.htm, 
brought to namedroppers in 
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg00862.html.

(4) In case someone is reluctant even to *read* a document for which an 
IPR claim exists, he/she might ask if such self-inflicted censorship 
extends to any issued patent, any publicly available patent application, 
and any foreign patent document for technologies in the public domain of 
his/her own jurisdiction.

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: [email-masked]

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 23:18:56 +0000

> his/her own jurisdiction.

	note that the IPR claims for the -threshold & -timers came -AFTER-
	the drafts were published and by a third party...  not the submitter
	of a draft.
	
	also - given Internet techologies are in every jurisdiction that I can
	think of, the solution needs to be unencumbered...

	YMMV of course.

--bill