Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete

[[e-mail]]

And a second thing I think is the implementation of SSM, which is a subset
of ASM in the architecture view (PIM-SSM is a subset of PIM-SM).  How will
they prevent people to use the 232/8 address space ? quite crasy to
imagine it, will they buy the address space which is supposed to belong to
each local machine ? Why do they not claim that ASM contains a subset of
technology wich is already patented by Apple ? IGMPv3 technology was here
already in 1992.. and PIM-SM in 1994, so we can surely say that SSM was
already there, but not implemented before the patents. One can use ASM to
do SSM and this is already the case for TV-like applications, is this
patentable ?

Hoerdt Mickaël
LSIIT-Strasbourg


On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 [e-mail] wrote:

> I have read the patent (very fast), and as the title seems to be
> impressive, the described technology is not really related to SSM in my
> opinion.  One thing that we could do is to note the differences between
> SSM and this patent.  What I have notivec after a first fast reading :
>
> - Apple propose to use another layer for Multicast, not SSM.
> - Apple propose to use a network number embedded in the Multicast address,
>   not SSM.
> - Apple propose a scheme to allocate multicast addresses on the local
>   network (because it use a network number), not SSM.
>
> I am pretty sure that there are other differences. Theses differences
> are important, enough important to make an apple "SSM" implementation not
> compatible with the SSM architecture described in the drafts, is this
> enough to say that the patent is irrelevant ?
>
> Hoerdt Mickaël
> LSIIT-Strasbourg
>
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Hugh Holbrook wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The only unclosed discussion regarding this draft surrounds the
> > > intellectual property rights statement posted to the IETF web site
> > > back in March (reproduced below).  There was some brief discussion of
> > > it on the mailing list back in April, but we didn't really close the
> > > topic, and so I'd like to bring it up again.  So, with this IPR
> > > statement in mind, let me now ask anyone who has opinions on the topic
> > > of whether to advance draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt to Proposed Standard
> > > to speak up.
> > [...]
> >
> > I think I've said this before, but as nobody else seems to want to throw
> > the first rock, let me do it.. :-)
> >
> > I don't think we can advance SSM unless we get a guarantee of RF licensing
> > or get a reasonably sure feeling that SSM implementations would not
> > infringe the patent in question.
> >
> > SSM is targeted as *way* too fundamental piece of technology, and locking
> > out those who are unable to do non-RF licensing (e.g. different open
> > source communities) is simply unacceptable.
> >
> > --
> > Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> > Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ssm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> ssm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm
>

_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm