Re: in support of axfr-clarify

[Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Danny Mayer wrote:

> The cheapest thing would be to do nothing. It is, however, not the right
> thing to do. Figure out the right thing first and then you can take a
> realistic view of the costs.

AXFR clearly needs clarification. The cheapest thing to do is clarify
AXFR so as to minimize or eliminate changes to existing software, and to
minimize the introduction of interoperability problems.

The "right" thing is to minimize costs, and not introduce unnecessary
changes in AXFR. No one has shown yet that the changes proposed are in
fact necessary.  That is, they haven't shown that one can't implment IXFR
with a more common implemented (but clarified) version of AXFR.

> >"Right" might not be the same as "Common". But changes from common aren't
> >"clarifications".  "Right" depends on your point of view.
>
> It didn't mention the word common. I said right. Right is very rarely objective
> anyway, so what's your point?

That is my point: You want to do the "right" thing from your point of
view.  Others have different points of view. But I think the most common
point of view of "right", is to minimize the impact and costs, and avoid
unnecessary changes.

> >I think that AXFR can be nailed down without severely impacting existing
> >implementations, and I expect that IXFR can be made to work with the
> >existing (and clarified) AXFR.
>
> That's what the document is trying to do. So far nothing that you said
> discusses the document, just how "unfair" it is to djbdns.

The current clarify document requires unnecessary changes, and imposes
unnecessary costs, and interoperability problems in the field.

I would be willing to work on an alternative clarify document.

* I've re-ordered your email to separate some of the less relevant
material and put it at the end.

> Of course, it is relevant to point out that if BIND were a commercial
> product it would cost more, in real money, to have it changed than for
> djbdns to be changed.

Bind made incompatible and non-standard changes. Its supporters are now
trying to impose those changes on the rest of the community under the
dishonest description of a "clarification".

Further, I think most sites are still running some version of Bind 8. For
very little cost, ISC can remove the non-standard changes. The cost
expended so far by Bind will have to be considered "research"  which
didn't produce anything useful.  C'est la Vie.

> Since djbdns is apparently a non-commercial product and noone is
> employed to make changes or fixes to it, it costs nothing to change and
> we have therefore chosen the cheapest alternative.

Nonsense.  Deployment costs imposed on the user community are part of the
costs to be considered.  And I'm willing to concede for sake of argument
(though perhaps DJB does not, and I have no authority to speak for him),
that djbdns is also a commercial product, as are other implementations.

The users of Bind 8 will also be forced to upgrade.  As will users of
Microsoft, etc.  Many operating system vendors ship Bind 8 variants. They
(and their users) will be forced to upgrade.  In the meantime, unnecessary
interoperability problems will persist.

This is a very expensive operation, and it is unnecessarilly expensive.

* What follows is of little relevance to namedroppers, except to support
the contention that Bind is actually commercial, and the subsequent
conclusion that its supporters have a commercially and competively vested
interest in getting these AXFR changes through.  This will be my last post
on this sub-topic.

> Assuming that you are in the US, you know nothing about UCC. I suggest
> an introductory course in the Uniform Commercial Code before you discuss
> this so knowledgably. Please point me to a site that is selling BIND on
> behalf of ISC.

Sigh.  After being President of the LPF since 1993, and having been to the
Supreme Court on copyright issues, and having worked on intellectual
property issues for a long time, and having been informally educated by
prominent lawyers and law professors on certain aspects of intellectual
property and anti-trust law, I am still surprised that people still seem
to think I know nothing about these issues. However, I'm not a lawyer and
of course, I don't know everything. But I know some things.

Indeed, I am reasonably familiar with UCC and UCC2. I have a copy of the
UCC on my desk.  As well as a Blacks law dictionary. And I have a copy of
"Intellectual Property. Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright in a Nutshell"
by Miller and Davis. (This is a West's Law book for Lawyers, not an
O'Reilly book)

What you seem not to be able to grasp is that there is a difference
between being commercial and being profitable.  One doesn't have to charge
money in order for something to be commercial.

While exchange of money may more clearly make something commercial, it is
not a requirement for something to be commercial. From Blacks Law
Dictionary: Commercial: "Relates to or is connected with trade and traffic
or commerce in general."  Commerce: (much longer): "The exchange of goods,
productions, or property of any kind"

You can see the contents of 37 CFR 2.33 which governs trademark practice
by the PTO by going to http://www.law.cornell.edu and clicking on
"Constitutions and Codes, then "Code of Federal Regulations, then Chapter
1, Part 2, then 2.33. You can see the underlying law by clicking on US
Code, then going to Title 15, Chapter 22, Subchapter 1, Section 1051. Look
at 1051(b)(3)(B).

Bind is commercial because in the trademarking of Bind, ISC declared its
_intent_ to be commercial, in order to have a well defined place in the
marketplace with a protected name.  These are public statements that
cannot be withdrawn. Bind is therefore inextricably involved in trade,
even if its trademark fails because of prior use.

This could go farther afield and get into contracts but for one thing: I
do not need to assert that Bind has actually been involved in commerce.
ISC has demonstrated its _intent_ for Bind to be commercial.

But since you seem so misinformed on the UCC, I will take up some more
space in this last post on this subtopic to explain things to you:

'Actual use' in commerce would certainly be demonstrated by a contract. A
contract does not need to be written and signed if it is less than $500,
to fullfill the UCC Statute of Frauds requirement. A contract also needs a
valid consideration, in order to be binding.  That consideration need not
be for money, provided it is a bargain, and involves a detriment to the
parties.  (See Contracts, by Emanuel Law Outlines, chapter 3).

The ISC Bind license is a bargain involving the exchange of a detriment
between the users of Bind and ISC for the rights to use Bind software
produced by ISC.  The users get to use the software, and ISC obtains
acceptance of liability disclaimers, etc, which would otherwise be a
detriment. The User gives up his rights to sue ISC for certain things, and
agrees to give credit to ISC, amoung other things.  This creates a valid
consideration, which then makes the contact binding and subject to the
UCC. So you see, one does not have to necessarilly accept money for
contracts to be binding, and for something to be commercial.

		--Dean


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