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

Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@cisco.com> Fri, 17 October 2003 22:52 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 SAA28667 for <ssm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:52:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAdRx-0007Um-3T; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:52:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAdRX-0007TP-RU for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:51:36 -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 SAA28638 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAdRU-0002ad-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:51:32 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAdRU-0002aU-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:51:32 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2003 16:01:12 -0700
Received: from holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-460.cisco.com [10.21.65.204]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h9HMoxeA026775; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 236A910B85C; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@cisco.com>
To: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@multicasttech.com>
Cc: hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@cisco.com>, ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com
In-reply-to: <web-1790828@multicasttech.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete
Reply-To: holbrook@cisco.com
Message-Id: <20031017225201.236A910B85C@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
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>

Hoerdt wrote:
> > 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 :...

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

As I read draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt:

You're right that the IETF will not take a stand on whether or not any
particular IPR claim is valid or not, but it *is* within the scope of
a working group to make an assessment of the risk in going forward
with a standard.  As part of that assessment, it's ok to discuss the
validity of the claims.  While the outcome of that discussion will not
be working group consensus, it can provide information for us to use
when deciding whether to advance the document.

It's not required that we perform a detailed investigation of the
claims before making a decision, but it doesn't mean that any
discussion of them is irrelevant.

-Hugh

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