RE: [AVT] Retransmission draft

["Rolf Hakenberg" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Gamze and all,

Although I believe that the concerns expressed in 3GPP on server complexity
and delay are less relevant for our discussion on potential IPRs, please let
me clarify the agreement in 3GPP.

At the last 3GPP SA4 meeting there was a consensus on to make RTP
Retransmission a working assumption in PSS Rel-6, subject to the concerns on
server complexity and delay being addressed at the next meeting.

Important for our current discussion on potential IPRs and how to progress
the draft is the fact that there was no condition on the IPR issues, but in
fact conditions that the draft should move to RFC on standards track before
the finalisation of 3GPP Rel-6.

Best Regards,
Rolf.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gamze Seckin [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:30 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: Colin Perkins (E-mail); David Leon (E-mail); Viktor Varsa (E-mail);
> Magnus Westerlund (E-mail); [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [AVT] Retransmission draft
>
>
> Hi,
>
> A quick note on the comment with regards to 3GPP's decision on this draft:
>
> It has not been yet accepted yet within 3gpp. It is still under
> discussion. In the last 3gpp sa4 meeting various delegates raised
> a concern about server complexity and delay issues with regards
> to the protocol. It was said that the acceptance is conditional
> on concerns being addressed in the next meeting.
>
> thanks
> best regards,
>
> gamze seckin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: José Rey [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:35 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Colin Perkins (E-mail); David Leon (E-mail); Viktor Varsa (E-mail);
> Magnus Westerlund (E-mail); [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [AVT] Retransmission draft
>
>
> Hi Colin, all,
>
> in the past weeks I had some intensive internal discussions on
> the matter of
> the potential IPRs on the RTP retransmission draft. As a WG participant I
> perfectly understand and respect the comments and interests
> expressed by you
> and others of the AVT group. In order to keep the good working
> spirit in AVT
> it is my strong intention to adress these comments in the best
> possible way
> by taking the interests of all parties involved in this work into account.
>
> Matsushita has published an IPR statement that it is prepared to grant a
> license on reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms and conditions (in
> accordance
> with paragraph 10.3.3 of the RFC 2026) on any part that is included into
> the RTP retransmission standard and that Matsushita possibly
> holds IPRs on.
> Providing a royality-free license to open-source developers will
> unfortunately lead to a situation where Matsushita will lose any rights on
> their IPRs in most cases. Taking into account the work and effort (we
> started with the retransmission draft in AVT more than 2.5 years ago) we
> spent into this draft, this is not acceptable for Matsushita.
>
> On the other hand, we believe that the situation for open-source
> developers
> is quite easy to solve by other means. First of all they are not
> in any way
> 'forced' to implement RTP retransmission. It is just an optional repair
> mechanism for the RTP protocol, as described in RFC2354. In order to solve
> the problems that RTP retransmission tries to solve, there are other
> solutions available from the AVT group which are not encumbered by IPRs,
> e.g. RFC2733 and draft-ietf-avt-ulp-08.txt. This makes the implementation
> of the RTP retransmission solution purely optional and easily avoidable to
> everyone.
>
> 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.
>
> Finally and FYI: 3GPP is aware of the IPR situation of the RTP
> retransmission draft and has accepted the solution provided in
> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-09.txt as working assumption in their
> packet based streaming service (PSS). The acceptance is conditional on the
> fact that the draft will proceed on standards track and an RFC is
> available
> before the release of the PSS specifications, (expected for March 2004).
>
> Looking forward to your comments,
>
> Jose
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Colin
> > Perkins
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 6:58 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; 'Magnus Westerlund'
> > Subject: Re: [AVT] Retransmission draft
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003, at 12:54 Europe/London, Jose Rey wrote:
> > ...
> > > In previous emails we have been asked to explain our patent
> > > application and
> > > we
> > > informed AVT that the patent application itself specifies a
> transport
> > > method
> > > using the RTP protocol where two sequence numbers are used: one to
> > > specifiy
> > > the transmission order (=RTP SN) and the other one defining the
> > > reprodution
> > > order, which in the draft corresponds with the OSN (original
> sequence
> > > number). We also stated that it is not possible to implement the
> > > protocol
> > > without infringing on the patent.
> > > So far we have not received any more questions on the patent, but
> are
> > > happy
> > > to provide them in case needed.
> > >
> > > On the issue of how to proceed with this RTP retransmission draft
> some
> > > opinions have been provided by Magnus Westerlund, Lars-Erik Jonsson
> and
> > > John Lazzaro. John Lazzaro (08.09.03) has suggested to publish it as
> > > Informational if the patent rights are held while Magnus and
> > > Lars-Erik have suggested to proceed with the document as a Proposed
> > > Standard (as we understand from the emails on from 22.09.03 and
> > > 09.09.03).
> > >
> > > Taking all the above into account and considering that
> > > independent of the patent situation this work is intended to be
> > > included in
> > > the next release of 3GPP, we would like to ask the group to proceed
> > > with the
> > > draft on standards track.
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > Jose
> >
> > [takes working group chair hat off]
> >
> > 3GPP is only one forum which uses IETF standards, and one where
> dealing
> > with IPR issues is commonplace. Having patented standards is more of
> an
> > issue for open source developers, who are often excluded by the
> > licensing terms. Would Matsushita be willing to clarify if the
> > "reasonable, nondiscriminatory" terms allow open source
> implementations
> > to use the retransmission format (this will probably require a
> > Royalty-Free license)?
> >
> > [puts working group chair hat on again]
> >
> > --
> > Colin Perkins
> > http://csperkins.org/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt


_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt