Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:14 +0300, "Alexey E. Suslikov"
<cruel (AT) texnika (DOT) com.uawrote:

>Patent jeopardizes IETF syslog standard. Read here
>

This sucks. It's no different than what Cisco did with their HSRP patent
to try to kill off VRRP. The Huawei IPR claim to the IETF is nearly
identical to the crap Cisco put out years ago in their IPR claim.

The end result is we have CARP, a patent busting implementation that is
far better than either of the originals

Will they never learn?

Anyone in the mood for "slog" ?

jcr

Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:55:46 -0400, Jim Razmus <jim (AT) bonetruck (DOT) orgwrote:

>* Nick Guenther <kousue (AT) gmail (DOT) com[060702 15:58]:
>7/1/06, J.C. Roberts <unknown (AT) abac (DOT) comwrote:
>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:14 +0300, "Alexey E. Suslikov"
>><cruel (AT) texnika (DOT) com.uawrote:
>>
>>>Patent jeopardizes IETF syslog standard. Read here
>>>
>>
>>This sucks. It's no different than what Cisco did with their HSRP patent
>>to try to kill off VRRP. The Huawei IPR claim to the IETF is nearly
>>identical to the crap Cisco put out years ago in their IPR claim.
>>
>>
>>
>>The end result is we have CARP, a patent busting implementation that is
>>far better than either of the originals
>>
>>Will they never learn?
>>
>>Anyone in the mood for "slog" ?
>
>Isn't syslog just like send random data on port 514 to whoever and
>they record it? How can you possibly patent that? That would be like
>patenting talking.
>
>-Nick
>
>
>I hold the patent on talking. Watch for a battery of law suits
>forthcoming.
>
>Sorry, couldn't resist. Laugh people.
>
>Jim

Jim,

I really wish I could laugh about it -I put my time and effort into
getting the VRRP crap settled Cisco (i.e. Robert Bar), so we could just
use a "standard" protocol -and no, I'm not the only human being around
here that wasted their time and effort on this particular problem.

Think about the time/effort/planing the developers put into making CARP
such that it gets around the Cisco patent

Don't misunderstand me, CARP is an amazingly innovative and extremely
useful implementation of a redundancy protocol. It's technically better
than HSRP or any of the versions of VRRP but the problems till stands
that it is not an "official" protocol, which simply means adoption and
inter operability will suffer to some degree.

Frivolous patents have a cost to those who fight them.

jcr

Sun, 2 Jul 2006 15:52:57 -0400, "Nick Guenther" <kousue (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

7/1/06, J.C. Roberts <unknown (AT) abac (DOT) comwrote:
>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:14 +0300, "Alexey E. Suslikov"
><cruel (AT) texnika (DOT) com.uawrote:
>>
>>Patent jeopardizes IETF syslog standard. Read here
>>
>>
>This sucks. It's no different than what Cisco did with their HSRP patent
>to try to kill off VRRP. The Huawei IPR claim to the IETF is nearly
>identical to the crap Cisco put out years ago in their IPR claim.
>>
>
>>
>The end result is we have CARP, a patent busting implementation that is
>far better than either of the originals
>>
>Will they never learn?
>>
>Anyone in the mood for "slog" ?
>
>Isn't syslog just like send random data on port 514 to whoever and
>they record it? How can you possibly patent that? That would be like
>patenting talking.
>
>-Nick

Basically you are correct about *current* syslog implementations. The
two goals of the syslog standard work being done are (1) defining a
message format and (2) providing a "secure" transport of said messages.

In short, secure inter-operability of syslog across various systems.

No one knows what's in the "sealed" patent application at the moment
since it has not been publicly released but considering the guys
claiming the patent have been involved in the syslog standards process,
you can reasonably certain some degree of dishonesty and corruption are
involved.

JCR

Greetings

Couldn't resist asking but can they really patent :
"sending "formatted" data over SSL" ?
That is just plain ridiculous !!
If i remember correctly the is also an RFC just for syslog under BSD.
A lot of devices already have syslog build in (for instance my AP
piece of crap USR has a syslog function) machines are going to be
pulled of the market ? That is plain dumb, we are heading for another
one of those frenzy" lets patent everything".

Best regards Laurent

7/3/06, J.C. Roberts <unknown (AT) abac (DOT) comwrote:
Sun, 2 Jul 2006 15:52:57 -0400, "Nick Guenther" <kousue (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

7/1/06, J.C. Roberts <unknown (AT) abac (DOT) comwrote:
>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:14 +0300, "Alexey E. Suslikov"
><cruel (AT) texnika (DOT) com.uawrote:
>>
>>Patent jeopardizes IETF syslog standard. Read here
>>
>>
>This sucks. It's no different than what Cisco did with their HSRP patent
>to try to kill off VRRP. The Huawei IPR claim to the IETF is nearly
>identical to the crap Cisco put out years ago in their IPR claim.
>>
>
>>
>The end result is we have CARP, a patent busting implementation that is
>far better than either of the originals
>>
>Will they never learn?
>>
>Anyone in the mood for "slog" ?
>
>Isn't syslog just like send random data on port 514 to whoever and
>they record it? How can you possibly patent that? That would be like
>patenting talking.
>
>-Nick
>
Basically you are correct about *current* syslog implementations. The
two goals of the syslog standard work being done are (1) defining a
message format and (2) providing a "secure" transport of said messages.

In short, secure inter-operability of syslog across various systems.

No one knows what's in the "sealed" patent application at the moment
since it has not been publicly released but considering the guys
claiming the patent have been involved in the syslog standards process,
you can reasonably certain some degree of dishonesty and corruption are
involved.

JCR
--

Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:09:02 -0600, Theo de Raadt
<deraadt (AT) cvs (DOT) openbsd.orgwrote:

>Don't misunderstand me, CARP is an amazingly innovative and extremely
>useful implementation of a redundancy protocol. It's technically better
>than HSRP or any of the versions of VRRP but the problems till stands
>that it is not an "official" protocol, which simply means adoption and
>inter operability will suffer to some degree.
>
>You are wrong. It is officially free and unencumbered.
>
>Now if you wish to redeclare the word "official" to mean "because
>some corporate people playing politics have dictated it be so",
>fine, be that way.
>
>But when you do so you are doing two things:
>
>1. Limiting yourself.
>
>2. Giving them the power to do it again.
>
>I suppose that is your choice. Keep saying that the Man is right.

I'm a bit confused by your reply. Yes, I kind of see what you mean but
it also seems I failed miserably to write things clearly. By putting
"" in quotes, I was trying to point out the stupidity of the bad
corporate decisions that occur far too often.

There are countless corporate idiots which make the wrong choice because
they like to waive a nonsense marketing banner saying that they are
"Compliant" with some "official" standard, regardless if there is a
standardized, completely free, unincumbered and technically superior
replacement available. Those bad decisions do slow adoption of a free
replacement (CARP) and in general, affect inter operability of systems
because they chose to support some encumbered protocol rather than CARP.

I can kind of see how saying their decisions are wrong/bad might be
limiting but I don't understand how it would give them more power to do
it again?

I've got this bad feeling that I'm missing something that should be
totally obvious please apply the clue stick.

jcr

Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:40:01 +0300, "laurent FANIS"
<laurent.fanis (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

>Couldn't resist asking but can they really patent :
>"sending "formatted" data over SSL" ?
>That is just plain ridiculous !!

As far as I know, at the moment it's only a patent *application* rather
than a granted patent. You can *apply* for a patent on anything you like
but that doesn't mean the patent will be granted.

>If i remember correctly the is also an RFC just for syslog under BSD.
>A lot of devices already have syslog build in (for instance my AP
>piece of crap USR has a syslog function) machines are going to be
>pulled of the market ? That is plain dumb, we are heading for another
>one of those frenzy" lets patent everything".

You a said "another" ? -Unfortunately, the frenzy has never stopped or
even slowed down, instead, it's only continued to grow worse.

jcr

Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:14:59 -0600, Theo de Raadt
<deraadt (AT) cvs (DOT) openbsd.orgwrote:

>I'm a bit confused by your reply. Yes, I kind of see what you mean but
>it also seems I failed miserably to write things clearly. By putting
>"" in quotes, I was trying to point out the stupidity of the bad
>corporate decisions that occur far too often.
>
>There are countless corporate idiots which make the wrong choice because
>they like to waive a nonsense marketing banner saying that they are
>"Compliant" with some "official" standard, regardless if there is a
>standardized, completely free, unincumbered and technically superior
>replacement available. Those bad decisions do slow adoption of a free
>replacement (CARP) and in general, affect inter operability of systems
>because they chose to support some encumbered protocol rather than CARP.
>
>I can kind of see how saying their decisions are wrong/bad might be
>limiting but I don't understand how it would give them more power to do
>it again?
>
>I've got this bad feeling that I'm missing something that should be
>totally obvious please apply the clue stick.
>
>What did you miss?
>
>By even using "official" in quotes, and your statement:
>
Don't misunderstand me, CARP is an amazingly innovative and extremely
useful implementation of a redundancy protocol. It's technically better
than HSRP or any of the versions of VRRP but the problems till stands
that it is not an "official" protocol, which simply means adoption and
inter operability will suffer to some degree.
>
>What are you doing? You are saying that your prediction is that
>it WILL suffer in adoption, it WILL suffer in inter operability.
>
>Keep at it. You might get what you want. Because what you wrote, it
>is what you wanted right?
>
>The problem is there are a whole lot of people who are willing to discuss
>the problems their ideas/implimentations face. And it actually does
>affect the adoption of our stuff. That's because noone from a corporate
>role would every say such a thing.
>
>So go ahead, be honest. Fight the losing fight.
>
>The fact is that CARP (+ pfsync + sasync) kicks the crap out of anything
>that is standardized

Got it. It's the ``self-fulfilling prophecy '' thing. Thanks.

jcr

J.C. Roberts [unknown (AT) abac (DOT) com] wrote:

This sucks. It's no different than what Cisco did with their HSRP patent
to try to kill off VRRP. The Huawei IPR claim to the IETF is nearly
identical to the crap Cisco put out years ago in their IPR claim.

It's funny how these Chinese guys like to rip-off Cisco. First they rip off
Cisco IS, by virtue they rip off all of Cisco's bugs, and now they rip off
Cisco's intellectual property stance. How do you rip off an intellectual
property stance? It's counter-intuitive. Either way, this makes them look
like the biggest ****ing idiots ever.

Tue, 4 Jul 2006 10:32:34 +0800, Lars Hansson <lars (AT) unet (DOT) net.ph>
wrote:

Tuesday 04 July 2006 05:05, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
>Either way, this makes them look like the biggest ****ing idiots ever.
>
>Most people who have ever had to use any of their devices knew this already.
>
>
>Lars Hansson

(; now that was truly funny and sad.

jcr