Subject: Re: Cambridge Ad-Hoc Routing Protocol (ABR)

From: [email-masked] (Joseph P. Macker)
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 18:03:33 -0400

At  8:44 PM 7/17/96 +0100, C. Toh wrote:
>Dear Fellow IETF Folks :
>
>Recently, I was pressurised to release information about my invention 

I hope you don't feel we pressurized you.  We solicit open discussion of
information (with content hopefully) and if that is not possible it does
not belong.

>
>I am a supporter of the Internet, the IETF, the academic and
>industrial research. However, because this technology is being filed
>for a patent, I will have to be aware of the amount of information
>to be released to the public (basically the time it should be released).

Interact and offer information or don't play .. it is entirely up to you.

>
>The patent covers a broad spectrum of protection on the concept of 
>associativity. Hence, any unauthorised commerical exploitation of this 
>concept will be legally dealt with. However, any commerical organisations 
>willing to exploit this invention and to put themselves ahead of others 
>in producing ad-hoc networking products and computing platforms could 
>contact me via E-mail, and NOT posting to this newsgroup.
>                           -----------------------------

please, apparent scare tactics and advertisements are out of line for a
working mailing list.
"contact me out of band cause i'm the coolest protocol around"
under the guise of protecting the mailing list...arghhhhh

>Due to my current busy schedule, I can only seriously deal with
>company negotiations after 1st September.

I warned you before about this advertising thing and I'm reaching for the
delete button.....further discourse in this manner is unwise.

>.......
>However, I hope to present at the next BOF.

If I am correct, we reached BOF saturation (We have had 2 BOFs). A decision
will be made on the status or current direction in this effort area.  One
potential is an establishing working group with an approved charter. 
Certainly, work in this area will proceed one way or another.

In addition, I feel your revelation provides little information for the
group to digest.  Associative routing/cacheing concepts are nothing new,
but I really don't even know what you're referring to in detail so I will
refrain from further comment.  Are you patenting flow-based
routing/switching?  You mention BROAD SPECTRUM of associativity. 
Certainly, in general it seems to be a good feature for an ad-hoc routing
protocol and its properties are present in some degree in all proposals
heard from.

I'd be interested in hearing more if you're ready to share in an open forum.
-joe

p.s., I hope sum(a+b)=sum(a)+sum(b) is not in violation. I use it quite
often. ;-).

    _/      _/ _/_/_/_/  _/       Joseph P. Macker, Code 5544
   _/_/    _/ _/     _/ _/        Center for High Assurance Computer Systems
  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/_/  _/         (202)-767-2001
 _/    _/_/ _/   _/   _/          [email-masked]
_/      _/ _/     _/ _/_/_/_/     http://tonnant.itd.nrl.navy.mil/macker.html