[ssm] RE: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt

Supratik Bhattacharyya <Supratik@sprintlabs.com> Fri, 26 March 2004 06:12 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18520 for <ssm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:12:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6kZU-0004If-Jg; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:12:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6kZR-0004IL-5d for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:11:57 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18517 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:11:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6kZO-0001oz-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:11:54 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6kYb-0001lC-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:11:05 -0500
Received: from smtp-out.sprintlabs.com ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6kXw-0001fI-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:10:25 -0500
Received: from mailman.sprintlabs.com (mx.sprintlabs.com []) by smtp-out.sprintlabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CACAB92C1; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailman.sprintlabs.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <FHCSPB8C>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:02:50 -0800
Message-ID: <49D9473417F1234C9C86886EE8353FAA116D02@mailman.sprintlabs.com>
From: Supratik Bhattacharyya <Supratik@sprintlabs.com>
To: 'Alex Zinin ' <zinin@psg.com>
Cc: "'fenner@research.att.com '" <fenner@research.att.com>, "'ssm@ietf.org '" <ssm@ietf.org>, "'holbrook@cisco.com '" <holbrook@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:02:49 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [ssm] RE: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt
Sender: ssm-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ssm-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <ssm.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ssm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>




-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Zinin
To: Supratik Bhattacharyya
Cc: fenner@research.att.com; ssm@ietf.org; holbrook@cisco.com
Sent: 3/25/2004 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt


  Sorry for the delay. The secretariat didn't follow up (probably
  because of the empty subject line in your message), so we didn't
  have it in the queue. Fixed now. We'll take the doc for IESG

  Thank you.


Monday, March 15, 2004, 7:52:02 PM, Supratik Bhattacharyya wrote:
> Alex and Bill,


> On behalf of the SSM working group, the chairs request that
> draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt be published as a Proposed Standard. A
> working group last call was initiated on Feb 11, 2004, and no comments
> were received.


> -Supratik and Hugh


> - --------------------------------

> From: Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@cisco.com>

> To: ssm@ietf.org

> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, zinin@psg.com, fenner@research.att.com,

>       holbrook@cisco.com, supratik@sprintlabs.com

> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:45:31 -0800 (PST)

> Subject: [ssm] last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt


> Hello everyone.,


> At the last meeting of SSM (in Minneapolis, IETF-58) we had a
> about draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt that I am hoping we can now bring to
> close.


> In Minneapolis, we discussed whether the draft was ready to advance to
> the IESG as a STD track document.  The discussion centered around the
> point of whether the IPR claim statement put forth by Apple should
> the document from being advanced to the IESG for consideration as a
> Proposed Standard.


> There was clear consensus that the draft was ready to advance on
> technical grounds.  The primary argument made for not advancing the
> document, was that, by not advancing at this time, we might have a
> better chance of getting the IPR claimant to change their licensing
> statement.  However, we did not come up with any concrete ideas for
> achieving this or any explanation of how the delay would help.  All
> two people who spoke up were of the opinion that the document should
> advance immediately.


> It is the opinion of the chairs that the consensus in the room (two
> dissenting voices acknowledged) was to advance the document.


> So the purpose of this mail is to ratify that decision on the mailing
> list, so we can get moving with the next phase of the process.  If
> anyone on the list has reason to think that the standardization
> should be delayed, then please speak up now with your reasons.


> After two weeks with no dissent, this document will be submitted to
> IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.


> Thanks!

> -Hugh and Supratik


> _______________________________________________

> ssm mailing list

> ssm@ietf.org

> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm
> <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm> 

ssm mailing list