Subject: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification efforts

From: Tommi Laukkanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:47:01 +0200

Hello

I have been participating in an open source effort to specify a networked
virtual environment protocol. Although Metaverse Exchange Protocol (MXP) is
covering only part of the scope here I thought it might be interesting.

MXP collects some good ideas to coherent theoretical model (Bubble Cloud)
and proposes working engineering solution. One of the MXP over UDP key
concepts is to have a minimal set of UDP messages for connectivity,
transport and distributed virtual environment scene graph synchronization.
All application specific information is transmitted as payload over the UDP
messages encoded in MXMP format. Another key concept is to multiplex all the
communication through one UDP port to simplify the session handling and
network connectivity.

Working C# prototype exists which demonstrates the reference implementation.

I believe that MXP is a good read currently for people interested in NVE
field. You can find the specification wiki from here:

http://go-mxp.org

best regards,
Tommi Laukkanen

---

From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:03:05 -0800

tommi.. did you read the IPR disclosure rules?

On Feb 22, 2009, at 12:47 AM, Tommi Laukkanen wrote:

> Hello
>
> I have been participating in an open source effort to specify a  
> networked virtual environment protocol. Although Metaverse Exchange  
> Protocol (MXP) is covering only part of the scope here I thought it  
> might be interesting.
>
> MXP collects some good ideas to coherent theoretical model (Bubble  
> Cloud) and proposes working engineering solution. One of the MXP  
> over UDP key concepts is to have a minimal set of UDP messages for  
> connectivity, transport and distributed virtual environment scene  
> graph synchronization. All application specific information is  
> transmitted as payload over the UDP messages encoded in MXMP format.  
> Another key concept is to multiplex all the communication through  
> one UDP port to simplify the session handling and network  
> connectivity.
>
> I believe that MXP is a good read currently for people interested in  
> NVE field. You can find the specification wiki from here:
>
> http://go-mxp.org
>
> best regards,
> Tommi Laukkanen
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox

---

From: Charles Krinke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:19:50 -0800 (PST)

Dear Meadhbh:

Can you help Tommi (and myself) understand what you mean? Was it inappropriate to make the MXP post to this list? I do not understand what the context is.

Charles

________________________________
From: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <[email-masked]>
To: Tommi Laukkanen <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 1:03:05 AM
Subject: Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification efforts

Hello
 
I have been participating in an open source effort to specify a networked virtual environment protocol. Although Metaverse Exchange Protocol (MXP) is covering only part of the scope here I thought it might be interesting.
 
MXP collects some good ideas to coherent theoretical model (Bubble Cloud) and proposes working engineering solution. One of the MXP over UDP key concepts is to have a minimal set of UDP messages for connectivity, transport and distributed virtual environment scene graph synchronization. All application specific information is transmitted as payload over the UDP messages encoded in MXMP format. Another key concept is to multiplex all the communication through one UDP port to simplify the session handling and network connectivity. 

I believe that MXP is a good read currently for people interested in NVE field. You can find the specification wiki from here:
 
http://go-mxp.org
 
best regards,
Tommi Laukkanen

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:30:44 -0500

I'm reaching here, but I think Meadhbh might be referring to it's
reliance on CICP to which, according to the creator in an article
posted on slashdot, there's a provisional patent application filed.
It seems that he is intending it to be public domain, but, the thought
of patents scares a lot of people. Ref:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=09/02/04/1934229

Best Regards

Dan

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Charles Krinke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dear Meadhbh:
>
> Can you help Tommi (and myself) understand what you mean? Was it
> inappropriate to make the MXP post to this list? I do not understand what
> the context is.
>
> Charles
>

---

From: Charles Krinke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:43:36 -0800 (PST)

I understand, Dan. Mostly I was looking for Meadhbh (Infinity's) view as the co-chair of the working group.

Charles

________________________________
From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
To: Charles Krinke <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 11:30:44 AM
Subject: Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification efforts

Best Regards

Dan

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:00:18 -0500

Tommil

For more information about the IETF IPR Disclosure policy, please read
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/

Best Regards

Dan

---

From: Tommi Laukkanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:02:25 +0200

Hello

I can very well understand patent concerns. All our MXP work has been
licensed under Apache 2.0 License which states the following about patents:

   3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
      this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
      worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
      (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,
      use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
      where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
      by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
      Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
      with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You
      institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
      cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
      or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
      or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
      granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate
      as of the date such litigation is filed.
Here is Bens recent blog post about his patent application which he made for
CICP before our collaboration started: http://www.cybertechnews.org/?p=765

We are only reusing ideas and design principles from CICP. No algorithms,
message structures, message sequences or the kind has been copied. The
reference implementation has been made by me alone and I have not seen any
CICP code. For anyone still feeling concern I suggest brief study of these
two protocol specifications. We are mentioning CICP and SETP as
acknowledgement for our previous work before MXP collaboration. CICP stands
for Content Injection and Control Protocol:
http://greenphosphor.com:8080/CICP_v1_spec.pdf

There are not many professionals in the field who have not been
participating in some work which has been patented...

best regards,
Tommi Laukkanen

---

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:18:48 -0800

> http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=09/02/04/1934229

I believe there may be significant prior art to CICP. Also, given my 
experience with the current approach to patent examination in the patent 
office, it's unlikely that something like CICP would actually pass 
muster (see some recent case law that has made general software patents 
significantly harder to obtain).

Of course, nobody knows how it will actually work out, so a written 
declaration of public domain dedication of that provisional patent would 
be safest, if you worry about that particular detail.

Sincerely,

jw

---

From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:30:19 -0800

no. it's just considered good form to disclose patent encumbrance when  
introducing a new technology.

so.. my read on IPR policy is we're free to introduce protocols,  
techniques, etc., to mailing list discussions that may be covered by  
some IP regime and when you submit a draft that makes use of  
encumbered technology, you MUST disclose your IPR interest. we're  
probably in a bit of limbo here 'cause we're not even a working group  
yet this _is_ an ietf mailing list, so discussions brought to it must  
be in accord with the IETF IPR disclosure policy.

anecdotal accounts from the web indicate MXP is based on CICP, and the  
IP status of CICP is "complicated." i am unfortunately unfamiliar with  
the contents of MXP or CICP, so i can't comment on how they might  
relate to anything that happens here.

so... i was hoping that the people responsible for either MXP or CICP,  
who have a good understanding of those proposals disclose the IPR  
interests.

-cheers
-m

On Feb 22, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Charles Krinke wrote:

> inappropriate to make the MXP post to this list? I do not understand  
> what the context is.
>
> Charles
>
>> transmitted as payload over the UDP messages encoded in MXMP  
>> format. Another key concept is to multiplex all the communication  
>> through one UDP port to simplify the session handling and network  
>> connectivity.
>>
>> I believe that MXP is a good read currently for people interested  
>> in NVE field. You can find the specification wiki from here:
>>
>> http://go-mxp.org
>>
>> best regards,
>> Tommi Laukkanen
>>

---

From: David W Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:35:04 -0500

I am,  in no way a lawyer, so use the usual grains lf salt. We're on an 
IETF mailing list, and NOTEWELL fully applies.  I believe that, anyone who 
suggests an existing piece of technology that they *know* is IP encumbered 
is supposed to disclose the encumberance. That certainly applies on any 
formal submissions, and it is cerainly in the spirit of the  rules. 
Encumberance doesn't prohibit discussing it at all, just it needs to be 
disclossed.  As I read the IETF rules, anything which would get specificed 
wihch in encumbered has to be available under RAND (Reasonable and Non 
Discremenatory) terms, The IETF, encourages, members to donate patented 
material for free use, and, encourages solutions which don't use 
encumbered material. 

- David W. Levine
~ Zha Ewry (ISL) 

"Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
02/22/2009 04:30 PM

To
Charles Krinke <[email-masked]>
cc
[email-masked]
Subject
Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification efforts

so.. my read on IPR policy is we're free to introduce protocols, 
techniques, etc., to mailing list discussions that may be covered by some 
IP regime and when you submit a draft that makes use of encumbered 
technology, you MUST disclose your IPR interest. we're probably in a bit 
of limbo here 'cause we're not even a working group yet this _is_ an ietf 
mailing list, so discussions brought to it must be in accord with the IETF 
IPR disclosure policy.

anecdotal accounts from the web indicate MXP is based on CICP, and the IP 
status of CICP is "complicated." i am unfortunately unfamiliar with the 
contents of MXP or CICP, so i can't comment on how they might relate to 
anything that happens here.

so... i was hoping that the people responsible for either MXP or CICP, who 
have a good understanding of those proposals disclose the IPR interests.

-cheers
-m

Dear Meadhbh:

Charles

Hello
 
I have been participating in an open source effort to specify a networked 
virtual environment protocol. Although Metaverse Exchange Protocol (MXP) 
is covering only part of the scope here I thought it might be interesting.
 
MXP collects some good ideas to coherent theoretical model (Bubble Cloud) 
and proposes working engineering solution. One of the MXP over UDP key 
concepts is to have a minimal set of UDP messages for connectivity, 
transport and distributed virtual environment scene graph synchronization. 
All application specific information is transmitted as payload over the 
UDP messages encoded in MXMP format. Another key concept is to multiplex 
all the communication through one UDP port to simplify the session 
handling and network connectivity. 
 
Working C# prototype exists which demonstrates the reference 
implementation.

http://go-mxp.org
 
best regards,
Tommi Laukkanen

---

From: David W Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:37:27 -0500

Grace McDunnough posted an excellent blog entry with some relevant 
thoughts. I bring everyone's attention to 
http://phasinggrace.blogspot.com/2009/02/mmox-and-social-architecture.html 

- David
~ Zha

---

From: Tommi Laukkanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:15:24 +0200

Hello

Thank you for your continuing interest in MXP. MXP does not have license
encumberances especially as CICP does not have them either. Please read the
blog post I included in the previous mail:
http://www.cybertechnews.org/?p=765

It is an article where Ben *publishes the provisional patent application to
public domain.*

best regards,
Tommi Laukkanen

---

From: Gareth Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:16:46 +0000

Is it actually meaningful to post a patent (and a provisional patent
no less) to the public domain?
Really, without at least 2 lawyers saying "yes", I think anything that
has patent interests on it is risky.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Tommi Laukkanen
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> It is an article where Ben publishes the provisional patent application to
> public domain.
>
> best regards,
> Tommi Laukkanen

---

From: Tommi Laukkanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:52:51 +0200

Hello

We have played this game long enough. Let me speak frankly and bear with me.
It would probably serve better to approach these patent issues logically and
based on facts instead of vague references to risks. I understand that some
parties are not interested in MXP. Trying to slander alternative approaches
is still quite unprofessional.

I would say that adequate facts has been presented to clear up these IRP
concerns for now. If it happens that MXP becomes official candidate for a
standard then there is good time for any number of lawyers to go through the
public domain patent application. In the mean time anyone still concerned
can ask their lawyers for councel. All the material is publicly available
for review.

best regards,
Tommi Laukkanen

---

From: Gareth Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:55:39 +0000

The problem is that we need to know NOW if we should be concerned,
before potentially going to the effort of developing a standard that
accidentally is patent-encumbered.

---

From: Gareth Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:57:00 +0000

I should also note that i'm not of the opinion that CICP or potential
derivatives should be completely avoided, just that we should not
expend significant effort in anything which may be dependent before
having a statement from someone with a law degree.

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:57:23 -0500

Tommil

As far as I can tell, there isn't anyone slandering your alternative
approach.   It is stated, in the rules of the IETF, that Intellectual
property rights *MUST* be disclosed using the IPR disclosure tool.
This has nothing to do with whether or not the license to use the
patent is granted.  The disclosure must still be made.

Best Regards

Dan