From ssm-admin@ietf.org Mon Oct 13 15:41:08 2003 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 PAA23023 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98Xy-0003qK-LQ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:40:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98Xp-0003pg-Lh for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:39:53 -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 PAA22957 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:39:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98Xo-0007HA-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:39:52 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98Xn-0007H1-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:39:51 -0400 Received: from holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (dhcp-10-33-235-56.cisco.com [10.33.235.56]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h9DJdJeH012904; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id EF25010B85C; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Holbrook To: holbrook@cisco.com Cc: ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com In-reply-to: <20030508203237.418DA10B7A7@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> Reply-To: holbrook@cisco.com Message-Id: <20031013194017.EF25010B85C@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello, ssm working group. draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03.txt incorporated substantial comments from Pekka, Brian and others. We went through a second working group last call on this document back in May, and received no comments on the revised draft. I believe that we have working group consensus that the draft is ready to advance, on a technical basis. As the -03 draft is near expiration, I am going to submit an -04 version to fix one grammatical typo and keep it alive in the archives. 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 found the following document to be a helpful reference when thinking about intellectual property issues: draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt Thanks, -Hugh and Supratik -------------------------------- The following is quoted from http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/APPLE-SSM.txt Received March 10, 2003 From: "Edward W. Scott" Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") believes that its U.S. Patent Number 5,517,494 may be necessary for an implementation of the protocol draft-ietf-ssm-arch-02.txt entitled "Source Specific Multicast for IP." If this protocol is approved as an IETF Standard, licenses will be available to any party on reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms, on condition of reciprocity and defensive use, for a compliant implementation of the protocol. Any questions regarding this communication should be directed to: Director of Patents Apple Computer, Inc. 1 Infinite Loop, MS 3-PAT Cupertino, CA 95014-2084 Voice: (408) 974-9453 Fax: (408) 974-5436 E-mail: iplaw@apple.com Sincerely, Edward W. Scott, IV Senior Patent Counsel _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 13 15:41:09 2003 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 PAA23043 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:41:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98Yh-0003ts-Ot for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:40:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9DJelA7014988 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:40:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98Yh-0003tf-Lp for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:40:47 -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 PAA22982 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98Yg-0007Hy-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:40:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98Yf-0007Hu-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:40:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98Xy-0003qK-LQ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:40:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98Xp-0003pg-Lh for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:39:53 -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 PAA22957 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:39:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98Xo-0007HA-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:39:52 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98Xn-0007H1-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:39:51 -0400 Received: from holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (dhcp-10-33-235-56.cisco.com [10.33.235.56]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h9DJdJeH012904; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id EF25010B85C; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Holbrook To: holbrook@cisco.com Cc: ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com In-reply-to: <20030508203237.418DA10B7A7@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> Reply-To: holbrook@cisco.com Message-Id: <20031013194017.EF25010B85C@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello, ssm working group. draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03.txt incorporated substantial comments from Pekka, Brian and others. We went through a second working group last call on this document back in May, and received no comments on the revised draft. I believe that we have working group consensus that the draft is ready to advance, on a technical basis. As the -03 draft is near expiration, I am going to submit an -04 version to fix one grammatical typo and keep it alive in the archives. 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 found the following document to be a helpful reference when thinking about intellectual property issues: draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt Thanks, -Hugh and Supratik -------------------------------- The following is quoted from http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/APPLE-SSM.txt Received March 10, 2003 From: "Edward W. Scott" Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") believes that its U.S. Patent Number 5,517,494 may be necessary for an implementation of the protocol draft-ietf-ssm-arch-02.txt entitled "Source Specific Multicast for IP." If this protocol is approved as an IETF Standard, licenses will be available to any party on reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms, on condition of reciprocity and defensive use, for a compliant implementation of the protocol. Any questions regarding this communication should be directed to: Director of Patents Apple Computer, Inc. 1 Infinite Loop, MS 3-PAT Cupertino, CA 95014-2084 Voice: (408) 974-9453 Fax: (408) 974-5436 E-mail: iplaw@apple.com Sincerely, Edward W. Scott, IV Senior Patent Counsel _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-admin@ietf.org Mon Oct 13 15:48:01 2003 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 PAA23410 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98ej-0004TA-9f; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98eG-0004Nj-2k for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:46:32 -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 PAA23316 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98eE-0007PM-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:46:30 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98eE-0007Om-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:46:30 -0400 Received: from holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (dhcp-10-33-235-56.cisco.com [10.33.235.56]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h9DJjwvA023422; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 954F210B85C; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:46:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Holbrook To: ssm@ietf.org Cc: holbrook@cisco.com, supratik@sprintlabs.com Reply-To: holbrook@cisco.com Message-Id: <20031013194656.954F210B85C@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ssm] ssm wg status update, ssm meeting in Minneapolis 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , The SSM working group has not met in quite some time. Here's a status update on our progress. - The informational overview draft is now an RFC. Yay! - The ssm-arch draft is ready to advance to the IESG for consideration as an RFC, pending a discussion of the IPR issue mentioned in my previous mail. - The question of administratively scoped SSM addresses has come up numerous times: are they necessary, and if so, where should they be allocated. There has been prior discussion on the list but no clear consensus has been reached on what to do. I plan to submit an -00 draft on the admin-scoping topic in the next week which maybe can seed the discussion. We think it would be worthwhile for the working group to meet in Minneapolis to try to move toward consensus on the admin scoping issue and possibly on the IPR issue. So we're requesting a 1 hour slot at the Minneapolis IETF (hopefully on Wednesday next to Magma). Other contributions and comments before Minneapolis are of course welcome. SSM working group meeting tentative agenda: Admin scoping and SSM - what to do. (possibly) ssm-arch IPR issues If you have more requests for agenda items, please send them to us. Thanks, -Hugh and Supratik _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 13 15:48:02 2003 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 PAA23426 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98fM-0004X6-KN for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:47:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9DJlebA017418 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:47:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98fM-0004Wr-FI for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:47:40 -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 PAA23375 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:47:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98fK-0007Ql-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:47:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98fK-0007Qi-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:47:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98ej-0004TA-9f; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A98eG-0004Nj-2k for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:46:32 -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 PAA23316 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98eE-0007PM-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:46:30 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A98eE-0007Om-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:46:30 -0400 Received: from holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (dhcp-10-33-235-56.cisco.com [10.33.235.56]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h9DJjwvA023422; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 954F210B85C; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:46:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Holbrook To: ssm@ietf.org Cc: holbrook@cisco.com, supratik@sprintlabs.com Reply-To: holbrook@cisco.com Message-Id: <20031013194656.954F210B85C@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ssm] ssm wg status update, ssm meeting in Minneapolis 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , The SSM working group has not met in quite some time. Here's a status update on our progress. - The informational overview draft is now an RFC. Yay! - The ssm-arch draft is ready to advance to the IESG for consideration as an RFC, pending a discussion of the IPR issue mentioned in my previous mail. - The question of administratively scoped SSM addresses has come up numerous times: are they necessary, and if so, where should they be allocated. There has been prior discussion on the list but no clear consensus has been reached on what to do. I plan to submit an -00 draft on the admin-scoping topic in the next week which maybe can seed the discussion. We think it would be worthwhile for the working group to meet in Minneapolis to try to move toward consensus on the admin scoping issue and possibly on the IPR issue. So we're requesting a 1 hour slot at the Minneapolis IETF (hopefully on Wednesday next to Magma). Other contributions and comments before Minneapolis are of course welcome. SSM working group meeting tentative agenda: Admin scoping and SSM - what to do. (possibly) ssm-arch IPR issues If you have more requests for agenda items, please send them to us. Thanks, -Hugh and Supratik _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-admin@ietf.org Thu Oct 16 08:38:33 2003 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 IAA00665 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AA7OD-00041R-LG; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AA7NI-0003nK-CM for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:37:04 -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 IAA00613 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AA7NH-0004FT-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:37:03 -0400 Received: from [203.197.140.35] (helo=fsnt.future.futsoft.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AA7NF-0004Ee-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:37:02 -0400 Received: from kailash1.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.6) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:10:34 +0530 Received: from rajeshbn (rajeshbn.future.futsoft.com [10.6.4.146]) by kailash1.future.futsoft.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id h9GCZOT32027 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:05:24 +0530 Reply-To: From: "rajeshbn" To: Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:00:16 +0530 Message-ID: <000d01c393e1$41d4dde0$9204060a@future.futsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We have following doubt in the suppress router side processing. The section 6.6.3 of Rfc3376 states that when a group / group and source specific query is sent. The group timer or the source timer should be reduced to LMQT. Then queries should be scheduled to send [Last member query count -1] retransmissions. for every [last memeber qeury interval] over LMQT. But for each source or group which have a timer value of greater than LMQT. the Suppress router side processing (SRSP) bit should be set. The doubt is how many times would such messages with SRSP bit set would be sent. I feel that only one such message would go out, that is the first one. and all the other queries retransmitted would be sent out only with SRSP bit clear as their timers have been reduced to LMQT. Am I correct in my understanding. Please explain me. Thanks in advance rajesh & raja. *************************************************************************** This message is proprietary to Future Software Limited (FSL) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. FSL accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus. *************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 16 08:38:36 2003 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 IAA00686 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AA7OQ-000458-Gp for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:38:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9GCcEfr015686 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:38:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AA7OQ-00044v-DZ for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:38:14 -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 IAA00647 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AA7OP-0004G7-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:38:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AA7OO-0004G3-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:38:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AA7OD-00041R-LG; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AA7NI-0003nK-CM for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:37:04 -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 IAA00613 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AA7NH-0004FT-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:37:03 -0400 Received: from [203.197.140.35] (helo=fsnt.future.futsoft.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AA7NF-0004Ee-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:37:02 -0400 Received: from kailash1.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.6) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:10:34 +0530 Received: from rajeshbn (rajeshbn.future.futsoft.com [10.6.4.146]) by kailash1.future.futsoft.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id h9GCZOT32027 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:05:24 +0530 Reply-To: From: "rajeshbn" To: Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:00:16 +0530 Message-ID: <000d01c393e1$41d4dde0$9204060a@future.futsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We have following doubt in the suppress router side processing. The section 6.6.3 of Rfc3376 states that when a group / group and source specific query is sent. The group timer or the source timer should be reduced to LMQT. Then queries should be scheduled to send [Last member query count -1] retransmissions. for every [last memeber qeury interval] over LMQT. But for each source or group which have a timer value of greater than LMQT. the Suppress router side processing (SRSP) bit should be set. The doubt is how many times would such messages with SRSP bit set would be sent. I feel that only one such message would go out, that is the first one. and all the other queries retransmitted would be sent out only with SRSP bit clear as their timers have been reduced to LMQT. Am I correct in my understanding. Please explain me. Thanks in advance rajesh & raja. *************************************************************************** This message is proprietary to Future Software Limited (FSL) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. FSL accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus. *************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 17 02:30:33 2003 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 CAA20903 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAO7d-0001Y2-Sw; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAO6x-0001W5-DP for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:29:19 -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 CAA20824 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAO6s-00078Z-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:29:14 -0400 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAO6r-00077y-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:29:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9H6SXV22383; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:28:33 +0300 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:28:33 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Hugh Holbrook cc: ssm@ietf.org, Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete In-Reply-To: <20031013194017.EF25010B85C@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 02:30:34 2003 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 CAA20921 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAO7q-0001ZU-3U for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9H6UELn006039 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAO7p-0001ZI-Q5 for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:13 -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 CAA20871 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAO7l-0007H5-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAO7l-0007H2-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAO7d-0001Y2-Sw; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAO6x-0001W5-DP for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:29:19 -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 CAA20824 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAO6s-00078Z-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:29:14 -0400 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAO6r-00077y-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:29:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9H6SXV22383; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:28:33 +0300 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:28:33 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Hugh Holbrook cc: ssm@ietf.org, Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete In-Reply-To: <20031013194017.EF25010B85C@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 From ssm-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 17 02:58:23 2003 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 CAA21418 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAOYj-00030z-BX; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAOYb-00030n-Jf for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:53 -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 CAA21389 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:43 -0400 (EDT) From: hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAOYX-0007SJ-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:49 -0400 Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr ([130.79.44.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAOYW-0007SF-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:49 -0400 Received: from clarinet.u-strasbg.fr (clarinet.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.157]) by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id h9H77Mnv005065; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:07:22 +0200 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:57:31 +0200 (CEST) To: Pekka Savola cc: Hugh Holbrook , ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE 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 Micka=EBl 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 licensin= g > 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 From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 02:58:29 2003 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 CAA21436 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAOYr-00032P-9Q for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:58:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9H6w9X3011674 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:58:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAOYq-00032D-P2 for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:58:08 -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 CAA21393 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAOYh-0007SR-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAOYh-0007SO-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAOYj-00030z-BX; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAOYb-00030n-Jf for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:53 -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 CAA21389 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:43 -0400 (EDT) From: hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAOYX-0007SJ-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:49 -0400 Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr ([130.79.44.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAOYW-0007SF-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:57:49 -0400 Received: from clarinet.u-strasbg.fr (clarinet.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.157]) by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id h9H77Mnv005065; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:07:22 +0200 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:57:31 +0200 (CEST) To: Pekka Savola cc: Hugh Holbrook , ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE 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 Micka=EBl 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 licensin= g > 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 From ssm-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 17 03:31:31 2003 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 DAA22277 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAP4g-0004gR-II; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAP4X-0004g3-BW for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:30:53 -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 DAA22252 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:30:44 -0400 (EDT) From: hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAP4U-0007lK-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:30:50 -0400 Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr ([130.79.44.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAP4U-0007lH-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:30:50 -0400 Received: from clarinet.u-strasbg.fr (clarinet.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.157]) by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id h9H7einv005688; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:40:44 +0200 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:30:52 +0200 (CEST) To: Pekka Savola cc: Hugh Holbrook , ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE And a second thing I think is the implementation of SSM, which is a subset of ASM in the architecture view (PIM-SSM is a subset of PIM-SM). How will they prevent people to use the 232/8 address space ? quite crasy to imagine it, will they buy the address space which is supposed to belong to each local machine ? Why do they not claim that ASM contains a subset of technology wich is already patented by Apple ? IGMPv3 technology was here already in 1992.. and PIM-SM in 1994, so we can surely say that SSM was already there, but not implemented before the patents. One can use ASM to do SSM and this is already the case for TV-like applications, is this patentable ? Hoerdt Micka=EBl LSIIT-Strasbourg On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr 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 : > > - 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 Micka=EBl > 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 topi= c > > > 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 thro= w > > the first rock, let me do it.. :-) > > > > I don't think we can advance SSM unless we get a guarantee of RF licens= ing > > 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 locki= ng > > 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 From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 03:31:33 2003 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 DAA22295 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAP4p-0004hE-DG for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9H7VBLG018052 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAP4p-0004h5-3B for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:11 -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 DAA22267 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAP4m-0007lT-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAP4m-0007lQ-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAP4g-0004gR-II; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAP4X-0004g3-BW for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:30:53 -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 DAA22252 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:30:44 -0400 (EDT) From: hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAP4U-0007lK-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:30:50 -0400 Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr ([130.79.44.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAP4U-0007lH-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:30:50 -0400 Received: from clarinet.u-strasbg.fr (clarinet.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.157]) by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id h9H7einv005688; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:40:44 +0200 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:30:52 +0200 (CEST) To: Pekka Savola cc: Hugh Holbrook , ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE And a second thing I think is the implementation of SSM, which is a subset of ASM in the architecture view (PIM-SSM is a subset of PIM-SM). How will they prevent people to use the 232/8 address space ? quite crasy to imagine it, will they buy the address space which is supposed to belong to each local machine ? Why do they not claim that ASM contains a subset of technology wich is already patented by Apple ? IGMPv3 technology was here already in 1992.. and PIM-SM in 1994, so we can surely say that SSM was already there, but not implemented before the patents. One can use ASM to do SSM and this is already the case for TV-like applications, is this patentable ? Hoerdt Micka=EBl LSIIT-Strasbourg On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr 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 : > > - 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 Micka=EBl > 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 topi= c > > > 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 thro= w > > the first rock, let me do it.. :-) > > > > I don't think we can advance SSM unless we get a guarantee of RF licens= ing > > 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 locki= ng > > 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 From ssm-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 17 03:39:24 2003 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 DAA22490 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:39:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAPCP-0005E3-DL; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAPC7-0005De-JQ for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:43 -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 DAA22463 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAPC5-000010-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:41 -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 1AAPC4-00000h-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:40 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2003 00:48:10 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.143]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h9H7c61b017252; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lorenzo@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id AAA17778; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:38:05 -0700 From: Lorenzo Vicisano To: Pekka Savola Cc: Hugh Holbrook , ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete Message-ID: <20031017003805.A9174@cisco.com> References: <20031013194017.EF25010B85C@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Pekka, Not sure I understand you position, let me try to rephrase it to see if I got it right: "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 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. 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.. Finally, when we get to the point of making decision, my vote is: advance unless we have reasons to worry about Apple's intentions. Lorenzo On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:28:33AM +0300, 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 From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 03:39:25 2003 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 DAA22508 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAPCS-0005FD-6Z for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:39:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9H7d4Xl020160 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:39:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAPCR-0005F5-Tb for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:39:03 -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 DAA22475 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAPCP-00001E-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:39:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAPCP-00001B-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:39:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAPCP-0005E3-DL; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAPC7-0005De-JQ for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:43 -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 DAA22463 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAPC5-000010-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:41 -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 1AAPC4-00000h-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:40 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2003 00:48:10 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.143]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h9H7c61b017252; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lorenzo@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id AAA17778; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:38:05 -0700 From: Lorenzo Vicisano To: Pekka Savola Cc: Hugh Holbrook , ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete Message-ID: <20031017003805.A9174@cisco.com> References: <20031013194017.EF25010B85C@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Pekka, Not sure I understand you position, let me try to rephrase it to see if I got it right: "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 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. 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.. Finally, when we get to the point of making decision, my vote is: advance unless we have reasons to worry about Apple's intentions. Lorenzo On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:28:33AM +0300, 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 From ssm-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 17 10:02:32 2003 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 KAA02361 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVB3-0006CL-Os; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVAB-000679-AC for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:07 -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 KAA02304 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVA9-0003eo-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:05 -0400 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVA8-0003eZ-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (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 (EEST) 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: <20031017003805.A9174@cisco.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: , 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 non-threatening. Unless that kind of "warm feeling" is there, obviously you aren't sure enough. > 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 ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 10:02:46 2003 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 KAA02381 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVBR-0006Lf-Vt for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9HE2PEO024402 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVBR-0006LV-R7 for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:25 -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 KAA02340 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVBD-0003f4-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVBC-0003f0-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVB3-0006CL-Os; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVAB-000679-AC for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:07 -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 KAA02304 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVA9-0003eo-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:05 -0400 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVA8-0003eZ-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (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 (EEST) 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: <20031017003805.A9174@cisco.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: , 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 non-threatening. Unless that kind of "warm feeling" is there, obviously you aren't sure enough. > 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 ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 17 10:08:22 2003 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 ; 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 ; 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 ) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.4.8) with HTTP id 1790828; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:09 -0400 From: "Marshall Eubanks" Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete To: hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr, Pekka Savola Cc: Hugh Holbrook , 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: In-Reply-To: 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-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 : >=20 > - Apple propose to use another layer for Multicast, not SSM. > - Apple propose to use a network number embedded in the Multicast addre= ss, > not SSM. > - Apple propose a scheme to allocate multicast addresses on the local > network (because it use a network number), not SSM. >=20 > I am pretty sure that there are other differences. Theses differences > are important, enough important to make an apple "SSM" implementation n= ot > compatible with the SSM architecture described in the drafts, is this > enough to say that the patent is irrelevant ? >=20 > Hoerdt Micka=EBl > LSIIT-Strasbourg >=20 > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: >=20 > > 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 th= e > > > 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 to= pic > > > of whether to advance draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt to Proposed Standa= rd > > > to speak up. > > [...] > > > > I think I've said this before, but as nobody else seems to want to th= row > > the first rock, let me do it.. :-) > > > > I don't think we can advance SSM unless we get a guarantee of RF lice= nsing > > 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 loc= king > > 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 > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 10:08:25 2003 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 KAA03109 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:08:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVGu-00070P-3f for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:08:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9HE833u026923 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:08:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVGt-00070A-NA for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:08:03 -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 KAA03036 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVGr-0003jC-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:08:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVGr-0003j9-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:08:01 -0400 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 ; 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 ) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.4.8) with HTTP id 1790828; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:09 -0400 From: "Marshall Eubanks" Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete To: hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr, Pekka Savola Cc: Hugh Holbrook , 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: In-Reply-To: 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 : >=20 > - Apple propose to use another layer for Multicast, not SSM. > - Apple propose to use a network number embedded in the Multicast addre= ss, > not SSM. > - Apple propose a scheme to allocate multicast addresses on the local > network (because it use a network number), not SSM. >=20 > I am pretty sure that there are other differences. Theses differences > are important, enough important to make an apple "SSM" implementation n= ot > compatible with the SSM architecture described in the drafts, is this > enough to say that the patent is irrelevant ? >=20 > Hoerdt Micka=EBl > LSIIT-Strasbourg >=20 > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: >=20 > > 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 th= e > > > 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 to= pic > > > of whether to advance draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt to Proposed Standa= rd > > > to speak up. > > [...] > > > > I think I've said this before, but as nobody else seems to want to th= row > > the first rock, let me do it.. :-) > > > > I don't think we can advance SSM unless we get a guarantee of RF lice= nsing > > 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 loc= king > > 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 > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 From ssm-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 17 10:24:21 2003 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 KAA04334 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVWK-0007jZ-Qc; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVW8-0007j2-74 for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:48 -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 KAA04308 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVW5-0003sJ-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:45 -0400 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVW5-0003sG-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:45 -0400 Received: from [68.105.181.3] (account ) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.4.8) with HTTP id 1790834; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:38 -0400 From: "Marshall Eubanks" Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete To: Pekka Savola , Lorenzo Vicisano Cc: Hugh Holbrook , , X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.4.8 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:38 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:00:18 +0300 (EEST) Pekka Savola wrote: > 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 > non-threatening. > > Unless that kind of "warm feeling" is there, obviously you aren't sure > enough. Dear Pekka; Nothing is secure, especially in IP (the other, legal, kind). If a company claims infringement, even on totally bogus grounds, and takes you to court, you had better have at least one million $ US cash reserve to claim and prove your innocence. The real protection is, will a company with a big patent pool (say, Microsoft or Cisco or Nokia or ...) implement SSM ? If so, and if they are sued, then they will countersue, as Apple undoubtedly has patents and products that could be claimed to infringe on some of their patents. (Look at SCO and Linux.) This would deter a big company from doing such a thing. I think that the Internet is based much more on Mutually Assured Destruction than warm and fuzzy feelings, and would vote (hum) to proceed unless there is something else brought to the surface. Regards Marshall Eubanks > > > 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 > ssm@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 10:24:24 2003 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 KAA04350 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVWO-0007km-Bd for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9HEO4ZN029804 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVWO-0007kd-5m for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:04 -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 KAA04313 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVWK-0003sP-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVWK-0003sM-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVWK-0007jZ-Qc; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVW8-0007j2-74 for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:48 -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 KAA04308 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVW5-0003sJ-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:45 -0400 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVW5-0003sG-00 for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:45 -0400 Received: from [68.105.181.3] (account ) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.4.8) with HTTP id 1790834; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:38 -0400 From: "Marshall Eubanks" Subject: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete To: Pekka Savola , Lorenzo Vicisano Cc: Hugh Holbrook , , X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.4.8 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:38 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:00:18 +0300 (EEST) Pekka Savola wrote: > 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 > non-threatening. > > Unless that kind of "warm feeling" is there, obviously you aren't sure > enough. Dear Pekka; Nothing is secure, especially in IP (the other, legal, kind). If a company claims infringement, even on totally bogus grounds, and takes you to court, you had better have at least one million $ US cash reserve to claim and prove your innocence. The real protection is, will a company with a big patent pool (say, Microsoft or Cisco or Nokia or ...) implement SSM ? If so, and if they are sued, then they will countersue, as Apple undoubtedly has patents and products that could be claimed to infringe on some of their patents. (Look at SCO and Linux.) This would deter a big company from doing such a thing. I think that the Internet is based much more on Mutually Assured Destruction than warm and fuzzy feelings, and would vote (hum) to proceed unless there is something else brought to the surface. Regards Marshall Eubanks > > > 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 > ssm@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 17 18:52:25 2003 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 ; 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 ; 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 To: "Marshall Eubanks" Cc: hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr, Pekka Savola , Hugh Holbrook , ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com In-reply-to: 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-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 From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 18:52:28 2003 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 SAA28686 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAdS4-0007Vq-Hc for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:52:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9HMq8NV028879 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:52:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAdS4-0007Vi-Af for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:52:08 -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 SAA28657 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAdS0-0002bV-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:52:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAdS0-0002bS-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:52:04 -0400 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 ; 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 To: "Marshall Eubanks" Cc: hoerdt@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr, Pekka Savola , Hugh Holbrook , ssm@ietf.org, supratik@sprintlabs.com In-reply-to: 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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-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 From ssm-admin@ietf.org Thu Oct 23 09:46:31 2003 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 JAA20675 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:46:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACfms-0004XK-AD; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:46:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACfmN-0004TU-I3 for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:45:31 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20541; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200310231345.JAA20541@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ssm@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:45:19 -0400 Subject: [ssm] I-D ACTION: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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Source-Specific Multicast Working Group of the IETF. Title : Source-Specific Multicast for IP Author(s) : H. Holbrook, B. Cain Filename : draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2003-10-22 IP addresses in the 232/8 (232.0.0.0 to 232.255.255.255) range are designated as source-specific multicast (SSM) destination addresses and are reserved for use by source-specific applications and protocols. For IP version 6 (IPv6), the address prefix FF3x::/32 is reserved for source-specific multicast use. It defines an extension to the Internet network service that applies to datagrams sent to SSM addresses and defines the host and router requirements to support this extension. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-10-22184800.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-10-22184800.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 23 09:52:03 2003 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 JAA21320 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACfsO-0005SS-12 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:51:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9NDph2e020974 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:51:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACfsN-0005SD-U9 for ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:51:43 -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 JAA21187 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACfsL-0000EH-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:51:42 -0400 Received: from sausage.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACfsL-0000Cf-00 for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:51:41 -0400 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ACfn7-00007e-1E for ssm-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:46:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACfms-0004XK-AD; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:46:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACfmN-0004TU-I3 for ssm@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:45:31 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20541; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200310231345.JAA20541@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ssm@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:45:19 -0400 Subject: [ssm] I-D ACTION: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: , List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Source-Specific Multicast Working Group of the IETF. Title : Source-Specific Multicast for IP Author(s) : H. Holbrook, B. Cain Filename : draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2003-10-22 IP addresses in the 232/8 (232.0.0.0 to 232.255.255.255) range are designated as source-specific multicast (SSM) destination addresses and are reserved for use by source-specific applications and protocols. For IP version 6 (IPv6), the address prefix FF3x::/32 is reserved for source-specific multicast use. It defines an extension to the Internet network service that applies to datagrams sent to SSM addresses and defines the host and router requirements to support this extension. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-10-22184800.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-10-22184800.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm