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

[Lorenzo Vicisano <[e-mail]>]

Pekka,

Not sure I understand you position, let me try to rephrase it
to see if I got it right:

"SSM is an important piece of technology, hence we should advance it.
But before doing so we need to make sure that either the patent-holder
changes its policy OR that SSM doesn't infringe the patent in question".

The second option above doesn't seem realistic: our evaluation on
whether the patent applies or not has little relevance if the
the patent holder is prepared to legally defend his position.
In fact the legal process or the threath of it are damaging even
if the patent-holder turns out to be wrong after all.

The 1st option seems to be utopian too: last time I checked most of
the IPR statements in the directory looked like this one.. why should Apple
go for a RF licensing ? Qouting draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt:

   o  IPR claimants, even when their intentions are good, may strongly
      resist being forced to make specific public statements about
      licensing terms.  If explicit statements of licensing terms are
      required, then the publicly stated terms will probably be
      "worst-case", which would provide little useful information.

The practical message that I got from
draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt is that we should try to find out
what Apple's intentions are AND see if we can obtain a more precise
IPR statement from the company. Not sure if the WG has attempted this
before..

Finally, when we get to the point of making decision, my vote is:
advance unless we have reasons to worry about Apple's intentions.

	Lorenzo

On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:28:33AM +0300, 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