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

Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@cisco.com> Thu, 12 February 2004 06:48 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27633 for <ssm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:48:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArAdl-0001xz-HM; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:48:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArAdj-0001xa-1x for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:47:59 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27608 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:47:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArAdf-0004CB-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:47:55 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArAck-000473-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:46:59 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArAc4-0003xP-00; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:46:16 -0500
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ( by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2004 22:53:28 +0000
Received: from mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com []) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i1C6jau7013976; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (gorilla.cisco.com []) by mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id APC77846; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id BDBD910B834; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:45:31 -0800 (PST)
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
Reply-To: holbrook@cisco.com
Message-Id: <20040212064531.BDBD910B834@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:45:31 -0800
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=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [ssm] last call for 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>

Hello everyone.,

At the last meeting of SSM (in Minneapolis, IETF-58) we had a
discussion about draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt that I am hoping we can
now bring to a 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
delay 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
but 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
process should be delayed, then please speak up now with your reasons.

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

-Hugh and Supratik

ssm mailing list