Re: [AVT] Retransmission draft

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 22 September 2003 14:52 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18786 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:52:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A1S2o-0007re-AT for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:52:06 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h8MEq6gK030226 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:52:06 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A1S2j-0007qp-BS; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:52:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A1S1n-0007pN-64 for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:51:13 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18734 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:50:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A1S1k-000020-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:51:00 -0400
Received: from penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.47]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A1S1a-00001Y-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:50:50 -0400
Received: from esealnt611.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.121]) by penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.12.9/8.12.9/WIREfire-1.7) with ESMTP id h8MEnc31015654; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:49:38 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from ericsson.com (research-nnng7k.ki.sw.ericsson.se [147.214.34.132]) by esealnt611.al.sw.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2655.55) id SZGA5QFQ; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:50:06 +0200
Message-ID: <3F6F0BFF.8020609@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:49:35 +0200
X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
CC: Jose Rey <rey@panasonic.de>, avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] Retransmission draft
References: <8CE4002E-E1EF-11D7-B913-000A957FC5F2@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <8CE4002E-E1EF-11D7-B913-000A957FC5F2@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 7bit

Hi,

This mail is my personal comments, not as an WG chair!

Colin Perkins wrote:

> On Wednesday, Sep 3, 2003, at 09:15 Europe/London, Jose Rey wrote:
> ...
> 
>> Exactly, it is not possible to implement the
>> payload format without infringing on the IPR.
> 
> 
> 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 think that it still makes sense to publish this a Proposed Standard. 
My arguments are:

- First I think that it is important to make the solution of 
retransmission available in a standardized way. By publishing it as 
proposed standard the normative text is in force. The solution then is 
possible to implement in an interoperable way.

- As the solution are not a core technology, however something that 
allows for more bandwidth optimized error recovery, it can be used by 
applications where one can license the rights for the benefit.

- The method is commonly used and if as indicated there is no way around 
the patent, and it is valid then having a proposed standard for it and 
using it, or not having a proposed standard and still using it, the 
proposed standard way will have less problem.


These are my arguments why it should be published as a proposed 
standard. However I would hope that Jose can provide some more details 
about the patent so that everyone can judge it validity. Also the patent 
statement is still not available on the IETF page.

If Matsushita would provide a more specified statement making this 
license free or at least some better statement I also think there would 
be less problem to go ahead.


Best Regards


Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com


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