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

From: Hugh Holbrook <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT)

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" <[email-masked]>

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:  [email-masked]

Sincerely,

Edward W. Scott, IV
Senior Patent Counsel

_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm

---

From: Hugh Holbrook <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks,
-Hugh and Supratik

Received March 10, 2003

Director of Patents
Apple Computer, Inc.

Sincerely,

Edward W. Scott, IV
Senior Patent Counsel

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:28:33 +0300 (EEST)

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Hugh Holbrook wrote:
[...]
> of whether to advance draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt to Proposed Standard
[...]

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:28:33 +0300 (EEST)

[...]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:57:31 +0200 (CEST)

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 Mickaël
LSIIT-Strasbourg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:57:31 +0200 (CEST)

Hoerdt Mickaël
LSIIT-Strasbourg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:30:52 +0200 (CEST)

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 Mickaël
LSIIT-Strasbourg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:30:52 +0200 (CEST)

Hoerdt Mickaël
LSIIT-Strasbourg

---

From: Lorenzo Vicisano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:38:05 -0700

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

---

From: Lorenzo Vicisano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:38:05 -0700

Pekka,

	Lorenzo

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:00:18 +0300 (EEST)

> 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.

>       "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?

> IPR statement from the company. Not sure if the WG has attempted this

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

> 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..

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:00:18 +0300 (EEST)

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:09 -0400

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:57:31 +0200 (CEST)
 [email-masked] 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

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:09 -0400

Dear Hoerdt;

among many others ?

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:38 -0400

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:00:18 +0300 (EEST)
> Unless that kind of "warm feeling" is there, obviously you aren't sure 

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

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:23:38 -0400

Dear Pekka;

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: Hugh Holbrook <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:52:01 -0700 (PDT)

Hoerdt wrote:
> > SSM and this patent.  What I have notivec after a first fast reading :...

And Marshall responded:
> 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

---

From: Hugh Holbrook <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:52:01 -0700 (PDT)

-Hugh