Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

Rob Glidden <> Mon, 29 March 2010 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA54E3A6A9A for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.853
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.071, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TcsSwCr7z-5V for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 19A753A6A99 for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 76959 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2010 16:30:14 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=p6bkRoiDCq+HY8VsYRjFZk4BQ+Q/3fUN24cwul2p70k2ob/bLKZdCLBJoDKB8KCaQZ2t8HPE2k99kZA7y3lR6F6OqGFpw4Fx+bOKPIcFhUgUMhs+XPf4xO8mGfOR8RoSSaZlPAsYSEnJUiMPv4vgM9eyX6l8nbAv8/OIASY1lyI= ;
Received: from (rob.glidden@ with plain) by with SMTP; 29 Mar 2010 09:30:14 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xflwSnaswBCuS46GvTyhPI4RUJpgPG5UXouB5Vxqo4t9fsHeH0I-
X-YMail-OSG: mRTC3IYVM1lS0pmjCPVXO93oERk1l46WwA2Yxh8Aa7q8vtZkpIetaG_N83EbsPcdv4QIKMuAVz52M37yq1wS_0IWcE1yF5mpJVYedg9bZii8iqaufMz5b8esD2tGnw7J1O6BJH1K71KPoHeBdH7KBXAtJDATOT_Vc.Wvfoba5u9vSeHC.ezpcwtWzn9qGq0NHsbqcSsHuuqY64plSrqxi7OB21sIAdjSY0rhORQdEwqSAOQFA0B1hWCayn81EVNeQbWqkreAXwc6MyZ4NVAvcZ0pToqapKfdNR_YmNEQ.rt266MowqCv90GlKYZ46dNlFfsFDk9FaGON694nH4.U
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:30:12 -0700
From: Rob Glidden <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephan Wenger <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Codec WG <>
Subject: Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:29:46 -0000

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.


Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi Marc,

On 3.29.2010 08:03 , "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <> 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.