IPv6 strawman plan: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] Moving Forwards

[Jeffrey Altman]

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4CC00F9269B48D411A9D1DF4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

According to IBM's attorneys and in my opinion "yes".  You cannot
name your product anything that derives from IBM's mark.  You cannot use
"TurboAFS", "SuperDuperAFS", "The world's first IPv6 AFS", etc.  All of
those uses infringe on their mark.

Jeffrey Altman


On 9/10/2012 11:26 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> Am I going to have any problems with trademark nonsense if I call
> this 'AFS6', and use the same ports, but only on IPv6 addresses?
> I don't mean to produce a throw-away implementation, but I also=20
> do not want to confuse anyone that this is anything other than=20
> alpha-use-at-your-own-risk software. (but hey, gmail's been 'beta'
> for years) .... What should I call an ipv6 prototype?
>=20
> I would like to have a working code that I can run regression tests
> against before proposing a standard that interoperates with AFS3
> and ipv4.
>=20
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:19:40AM -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>> While you may fork the code base, you may not fork the AFS3 wire
>> protocols.  If you decide to implement your own extensions to AFS3 you=

>> must follow the rules of the AFS3 standardization and RPC registration=

>> processes.  If you choose not to follow those rules, then you must
>> implement your own wire protocol that will not interfere with AFS3
>> clients and servers.
>>
>> While the approach you describe below might be sufficient for your
>> personal needs, it is unlikely that it would be acceptable to OpenAFS.=

>>
>> Jeffrey Altman
>>
>>
>> On 9/10/2012 12:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
>>> 1) replace kernel filesystem type of 'afs' with 'tfs''
>>> 2) expand all 32 bit IP address data structures to 128 bits
>>> 3) change sockaddr() etc calls to INET6
>>> 4) develop ipv4 afs to ipv6 tfs proxy server
>>> 5) kernel module housekeeping to allow openafs.ko and tfs.ko to
>>> be loaded at the same time to allow clients to mount /afs using
>>> legacy OpenAFS, and /tfs moving forward.
>>>
>>> Is there anything else I'm missing (besides the flamewar that
>>> will probably follow regarding the name change?)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenAFS-devel mailing list
>>> OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org
>>> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
>>>
>>
>=20
>=20



--------------enig4CC00F9269B48D411A9D1DF4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQTgnQAAoJENxm1CNJffh4ipsH/RqcI6/rfde70NWrWphkP678
bqvWUL9w3RMvdzafjGnO4F5zaDVZ26/4/dPkTbRiUMicoa59gTrBbtuzV/ELnzMZ
Kvwnr0wwESTnR+EqWu2n/H7kE8BniDdh/kKfXGACNpDFy4Vjn0ji0hrqYSZvS+Q7
w8R2PbpR3AFC/wOdKkQIA9D/gwcGNQN+I5082wamJ+umw+QWY7p+tRmIbOONxxbg
XMSHptKf8D/7gq2uke/W2g49jBPQ9jNg1nBEfIWFayNosKGEM/fqXLkRf3x93NIT
+yfjqjsesjSIbcWPAzTdvUvo/94xcHWUn6VC+Al5EN5EvTa8oFHCFAr5b/oZ27Q=
=Ma7c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4CC00F9269B48D411A9D1DF4--