Re: hah

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 06:04 -0500, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> On the same slide it says quite clearly 'Cisco to give us formal
> assurances that the HSRP patent does not apply'.  Because IETF accepted
> an RFC that, should anyone implement VRRP, CISCO _may_ choose to sue
> them under their HSRP patent portfolio, and CISCO has not given anyone
> assurances they will not, under any circumstances do so, and quite the
> contrary, they tried to give ok's for _only_ specific OS's to implement
> it, then CARP was born.

Every RFC nicely notes that the standard mentioned in the document is
free to implement for everyone, if it is not and you get sued or
whatever then point the folks who sue you to the persons writing the
draft which say they don't know of any IPR claims.

> How can CARP become an RFC standard when VRRP (a slightly duplicate, but
> inferior, since it cannot do v6 yet, proposal) is already in the RFC
> coffers?

First of all, the IETF is just one "standards organization", any
protocol that gets used is a standard. Did you see something about Skype
or BitTorrent coming from the IETF? No, me neither, because it is not
needed because it is already a standard. Next to that you can always
submit specifications to the IETF as personal submissions, you only need
to get to convince one of the AD's to accept it. Worked almost for MARID
btw.

But as I asked below, how can CARP become any standard when there is no
specification?

> > But for CARP, is there even a specification of it at all? As how else
> > are others supposed to implement it? Or do people simply have to run
> > OpenBSD on their J/C/R boxes? Or reverse engineer source code?

What if I wanted to use CARP just because I might hate Cisco? I simply
can't because there is no specification.

Greets,
 Jeroen

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]