Re: [AVT] Retransmission draft

> Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> writes:
>
> A question to the working group: since it's not possible to implement
> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-09.txt without infringing a patent,
> does it make sense for this to be published as a Proposed Standard?
>
> Given that there are FEC solutions that do not appear to be encumbered,
> should we consider the retransmission draft for an Informational RFC
> instead?

I'd think the ideal would be for the holders of the patent rights to
give their rights away, just like IBM did with its DES patents in an
earlier era.  This way, we get an unencumbered solution that is 
a Proposed Standard without doing any more work.  If that doesn't
work, then the Informational RFC solution is the next best thing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Lazzaro -- Research Specialist -- CS Division -- EECS -- UC Berkeley
lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu     www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt