Re: [AVT] Retransmission draft

José,

[cc list trimmed]

--> José Rey <rey@panasonic.de> writes:
> 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.

Provided it is clear that the mechanism is encumbered, yes.

> 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.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

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