Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
As another one of the "loud" ones, I absolutely agree with Michael's
points here. I see no reason why we need to "re-invent the wheel" in
areas where UPnP already covers the necessary discovery protocols.
Just about everyone in the CE, PC/IT, and mobile industries are
standardizing around UPnP for home networking, and the last thing we
need is another overlapping protocol. In fact, I would recommend that
those who are interested in making RE viable, should reach out to the
UPnP community to make sure that what we are planning on doing with RE
is as compatible as possible with the work being done within UPnP
Forum. As a member of both RESG and UPnP, I can assure you that UPnP
protocols are available on at least RAND terms and in many cases RAND-Z
(i.e. no royalties). In any case, I see no reason to hold up our PAR while we continue to debate this issue. That would seem to me as counter-productive. Jim Michael Johas Teener wrote: Thomas, As one of the "loud" ones, I wish you would stop persisting in your claim that the discovery mechanisms that already exist are "proprietary" and "almost certainly not available to all implementers under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms". I have noted a number of times in your presence, with your acknowledgement, there are a number of IETF discovery systems in place (free, and following IETF rules) including SLP (rfc2608 and its derivatives), DDDS (rfc3958) and multicast-DNS/DNS-SD (www.dns-sd.org, based on rfc2782). There are *many* others (too many, really). The industry is moving towards a UPnP-based system which, while based on various RFCs, is somewhat unique, and is a bit encumbered with IP issues. This issues, however, have NOTHING to do with RAND (all parties are committed to RAND ... and indeed to *free* licensing). There are NO, repeat NO "proprietary" protocols involved in all this. If you know of one, please be specific. I'm involved with at least three industry efforts, and I find myself at a loss to understand your insistence that there is a problem. Finally, why do we need a layer 2 service discovery protocol to be "competitive"? With whom? The only kind of discovery a layer 2 protocol needs is one that is required by the protocol itself ... such as a common synchronization source or "grand master" as it's called in IEEE 1588. Beyond that, we are getting into some rather major layering issues ... On 3/11/05 9:31 PM, "Thomas Dineen" <tdineen@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:David And All: Actually your posting dose bring to mind a concern about the Re Par Many if not most of the members of the RE Study Group, or at least a few loud ones, are against the development of a layer 2 Service Discovery protocol for Re. Favoring instead to use previously developed proprietary protocols. My concern lies in the concept that such proprietary protocols will almost certainly not be available to all implementors under reasonable non discriminatory terms. Leaving the future Re Industry in something of a patent licensing quagmire. Many have suggested the existence of layer 3 standard protocols is sufficient, but I disagree. I believe that we need a clean Layer 2 only architecture to be competitive. So I advocate the inclusion of an objective probably in the 802.1 Re Par to specify a Layer 2 Service Discovery Protocol. Further more I would suggest that both the 802.3 and 802.1 PARs be held, without consideration, until the issue is resolved. Thomas Dineen-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael D. Johas Teener ‹ mike@plumblinks.com http://public.xdi.org/=Michael.Johas.Teener - PGP ID 0x3179D202 --------------------- www.plumblinks.com ---------------------- -- Jim Battaglia Digital Entertainment Networking Pioneer Research Center USA, Inc. 101 Metro Drive, Suite 264 San Jose, CA 95110-1343 408-437-1800x203 408-437-1717 (fax) |