[ssm] (no subject)

Supratik Bhattacharyya <Supratik@sprintlabs.com> Tue, 16 March 2004 03:57 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20822 for <ssm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:57:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B35hM-0005uA-V9; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:57:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B35gf-0005tG-LE for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:56:17 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20562 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:56:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B35gc-0000JP-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:56:14 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B35fY-00008x-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:55:10 -0500
Received: from smtp-out.sprintlabs.com ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B35eW-0007fb-00; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:54:04 -0500
Received: from mailman.sprintlabs.com (mx.sprintlabs.com []) by smtp-out.sprintlabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89438B8A09; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailman.sprintlabs.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <FHCSJCC2>; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:52:20 -0800
Received: from SUPLAPTOP ( []) by mailman.sprintlabs.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id FHCSJCC1; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:52:08 -0800
From: Supratik Bhattacharyya <Supratik@sprintlabs.com>
Reply-To: Supratik Bhattacharyya <supratik@sprintlabs.com>
To: zinin@psg.com, fenner@research.att.com
Cc: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, ssm@ietf.org, holbrook@cisco.com, Supratik Bhattacharyya <Supratik@sprintlabs.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:52:02 -0800
Organization: Sprint ATL
Message-ID: <002e01c40b0a$0dcd8dd0$3b3602c7@sprintlabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01C40AC6.FFAA4DD0"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_60_70,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [ssm] (no subject)
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>

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 discussion
about draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt that I am hoping we can now bring to a


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