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

Pekka Savola <> Fri, 17 October 2003 14:02 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02361 for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVB3-0006CL-Os; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:01 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVAB-000679-AC for; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02304 for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:00:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVA9-0003eo-00 for; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:05 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVA8-0003eZ-00 for; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:04 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9HE0IL26850; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:00:18 +0300
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:00:18 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <>
To: Lorenzo Vicisano <>
cc: Hugh Holbrook <>,,
Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Lorenzo Vicisano wrote:
> "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 point is that if the folks get enough sure that it does not infringe,
these threats could be seen to be "obviously" inflated and therefore

Unless that kind of "warm feeling" is there, obviously you aren't sure 

> 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.

Perhaps Apple might have some vested interest in seeing SSM, as a 
technology, succeed?   Perhaps folks at Apple might realize that the 
claims don't really cover this case, and to maintain a reputation of a 
sort would give guarantees of RF for this specific case?

> 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..

.. this has probably been tried, but if that fails?

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

I would say the opposite: not advance.  We just can't build technology 
like SSM would be on top of this fragile ground..

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