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

["Marshall Eubanks" <tme@multicasttech.com>]

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