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

"Marshall Eubanks" <tme@multicasttech.com> Fri, 17 October 2003 14:08 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03090 for <ssm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:08:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVGq-0006yS-RU; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:08:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVGB-0006pM-Ek for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:19 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02949 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVG9-0003id-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:17 -0400
Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVG8-0003ia-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:16 -0400
Received: from [68.105.181.3] (account <marshall_eubanks@multicasttech.com>) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.4.8) with HTTP id 1790828; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:09 -0400
From: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@multicasttech.com>
Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete
To: hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Cc: Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@cisco.com>, ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.4.8
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:09 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1790828@multicasttech.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0310170847001.9554@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id KAA02950
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:57:31 +0200 (CEST)
 hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr wrote:

Dear Hoerdt;

1.) I do not believe that the IETF ever rules on any patent claims, so
these details are not relevant.

2.) The statement on the IETF IPR site
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/APPLE-SSM.txt

seems generic and to say the right things. Why is this worse than the
Sun claim on Reliable Multicast
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/SUN-RELIABLE-MULTICAST
or the Morotola claim on DHCP
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MOTOROLA-DHCP
or the AT&T claims on SIP
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/ATT-SIP ,

among many others ?

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

> 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
> > ssm@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ssm mailing list
> ssm@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm


_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
ssm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm