Re: [AVT] Retransmission draft

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Sun, 07 December 2003 19:24 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00112 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:24:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT4Vf-000652-GN for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:24:03 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB7JO39A023335 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:24:03 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT4Vd-000629-Mv; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:24:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT4VI-00061L-Vh for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:23:41 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00102 for <avt@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:23:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT4VG-0004E2-00 for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:23:38 -0500
Received: from dundee.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.242.163]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT4VF-0004Ds-00 for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:23:38 -0500
Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:62536 helo=mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk) by dundee.dcs.gla.ac.uk with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.04) id 1AT4Um-0001dI-00; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:23:08 +0000
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:23:06 +0000
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
To: rey@panasonic.de
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] Retransmission draft
Message-Id: <20031207192306.66493533.csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <00af01c3ba86$ff0a1260$05640a0a@panasonic.de>
References: <20031204145924.23d2dc61.csp@csperkins.org> <00af01c3ba86$ff0a1260$05640a0a@panasonic.de>
Organization: http://csperkins.org/
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--> José Rey <rey@panasonic.de> writes:
...
> > > In order to make this situation clear to anybody who reads the RTP
> > > retransmission draft, we suggest to add a paragraph at the very
> > > beginning of the draft. This paragraph will make implementors aware
> > > of the situation that the solution described in this draft is
> > > possibly encumbered by IPRs. Furthermore it will point implementors
> > > to non-IPR-encumbered solutions as above, which may perfectly be used
> > > instead of RTP retransmission.
> >
> > Without seeing the wording of this paragraph, I can't give a
> > definitive answer, but that would largely address my concerns.
> 
> right, how about this:
> 
> "This document provides an RTP packet retransmission mechanism for repair
> of streaming media.  The purpose of this paragraph is to make the reader
> aware that the retransmission mechanism described in this document may be
> encumbered by patent applications filed from Matsushita.  For details on
> the IPR statement, please visit the IETF IPR web page
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR.
> 
> However, packet retransmission is not the only means for streaming
> clients and servers to cope with packet losses.  A detailed description
> of options for repair of streaming media is given in RFC2354.  Therefore,
> implementers of this protocol shall take into account that there are in
> fact other mechanisms, such as forward error correction (FEC) or packet
> interleaving that represent an alternative to solve the problems packet
> retransmission tries to solve.    In particular RFC2733 and RFC2198
> present FEC and redundant packet transmission schemes that might well fit
> to the needs of the implementer. "

[takes working group chair hat off]

This, at least, would stop accidental infringement which is one of my main
concerns. I would still strongly prefer a royalty-free license, however.

Colin

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