Subject: [ssm] (no subject)

From: Supratik Bhattacharyya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:52:02 -0800

Alex and Bill,

On behalf of the SSM working group, the chairs request that
draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt be published as a Proposed Standard. A
working group last call was initiated on Feb 11, 2004, and no comments
were received.

-Supratik and Hugh

- --------------------------------

From: Hugh Holbrook <[email-masked]>

To: [email-masked]

Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],

      [email-masked], [email-masked]

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:45:31 -0800 (PST)

Subject: [ssm] last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt

Hello everyone.,

At the last meeting of SSM (in Minneapolis, IETF-58) we had a discussion
about draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt that I am hoping we can now bring to a
close.

In Minneapolis, we discussed whether the draft was ready to advance to
the IESG as a STD track document.  The discussion centered around the
point of whether the IPR claim statement put forth by Apple should delay
the document from being advanced to the IESG for consideration as a
Proposed Standard.

There was clear consensus that the draft was ready to advance on
technical grounds.  The primary argument made for not advancing the
document, was that, by not advancing at this time, we might have a
better chance of getting the IPR claimant to change their licensing
statement.  However, we did not come up with any concrete ideas for
achieving this or any explanation of how the delay would help.  All but
two people who spoke up were of the opinion that the document should
advance immediately.

It is the opinion of the chairs that the consensus in the room (two
dissenting voices acknowledged) was to advance the document.

So the purpose of this mail is to ratify that decision on the mailing
list, so we can get moving with the next phase of the process.  If
anyone on the list has reason to think that the standardization process
should be delayed, then please speak up now with your reasons.

After two weeks with no dissent, this document will be submitted to the
IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.

Thanks!

-Hugh and Supratik

_______________________________________________

ssm mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>