Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

[Rob Glidden <[e-mail]>]

A system of required and allowed IPR disclosure hobbled by a requirement that the disclosures can't or shouldn't be discussed would just create an opportunity for anyone with a patent application to create FUD that a specification is covered by IPR whether it is or isn't. 

Characterizing the BCP 79 disclosure procedure as an unnecessary design choice motivation is a red herring.

Rob

Stephan Wenger wrote:

Hi Marc,

On 3.29.2010 08:03 , "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <[e-mail]> wrote:

  

[...]

So double indirection would be OK, but not simple indirection.

    

It's certainly preferable to me.  Even more preferable is not talking about
patented technology at all, but I know that I'm in a minority position here.

  

As for the documentation of motivations for historic reasons: motivations
for design choices get lost in standardization all the time.

      

And it is probably the reason why it takes so much time to someone even
motivated to implement this specs right.

    

I believe that a spec should be implementable with or without motivational
information for design choices.  There are many SDOs which create "lean"
specs, without any motivation, and related implementations interoperate just
fine (MPEG comes to mind).  IETF RFCs contain a rather large amount of
explanatory language, comparatively speaking.  I'm not sure that all the
explanation necessarily helps in call cases.  But that's a discussion for
another day.

Stephan