[ssm] Re: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Supratik,

  Ack.
  
  Sorry for the delay. The secretariat didn't follow up (probably
  because of the empty subject line in your message), so we didn't
  have it in the queue. Fixed now. We'll take the doc for IESG
  review.

  Thank you.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Monday, March 15, 2004, 7:52:02 PM, Supratik Bhattacharyya wrote:
> 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 <holbrook@cisco.com>

> To: ssm@ietf.org

> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, zinin@psg.com, fenner@research.att.com,

>       holbrook@cisco.com, supratik@sprintlabs.com

> 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

> ssm@ietf.org

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


_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
ssm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm