Re: [nwcrg] Recent IPR disclosure against RFC 8681

[Cedric Adjih <[e-mail]>]

Hello all, 
I also share this opinion. 
best regards, 
-- Cedric 

> De: "Kuhn Nicolas" <[e-mail]>
> À: "Emmanuel Lochin" <[e-mail]>, "nwcrg" <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé: Dimanche 5 Avril 2020 10:32:46
> Objet: Re: [nwcrg] Recent IPR disclosure against RFC 8681

> Hello everyone,

> I have no doubt in Marie José and Vincent managing the situation accordingly
> with IETF rules.

> Thanks for your work,

> My 2cts,

> Nicolas

> De : nwcrg <[e-mail]> De la part de Emmanuel Lochin
> Envoyé : samedi 4 avril 2020 17:14
> À : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [nwcrg] Recent IPR disclosure against RFC 8681

> Dear all,

> I support Marie-José and I have full confidence in her impartiality .

> Emmanuel

> Le 04/04/2020 à 16:10, Colin Perkins a écrit :

>> Lloyd,
>> I see no reason for Marie-Jose to stand down. As far as I can tell, she’s
>> handled this issue correctly and in conformance with the IPR disclosure rules.
>> I have full confidence in Marie-Jose and Vincent, and expect and hope that
>> they’ll continue as co-chairs of the NWCRG.
>> Colin

>>> On 4 Apr 2020, at 05:26, [ mailto:[e-mail] |
>>> [e-mail] ] wrote:
>>> MJ
>>> this is an awkward position to be in. You are heavily conflicted
>>> in roles and responsibilities to MIT and to this list.
>>> The only thing I can see that must be done is that you simply
>>> need to recuse yourself and step down as co-chair, to avoid
>>> both a conflict of interest and the appearance of a conflict
>>> of interest.
>>> You may have played a part in tangling it, but this Gordian knot
>>> is no longer your responsibility to unravel or influence.
>>> Stand back, and let others figure it out.
>>> best
>>> L.
>>> er, 1 April? this isn't an April Fools'? right? right?
>>> Lloyd Wood [ mailto:[e-mail] | [e-mail] ] [
>>> http://about.me/lloydwood | http://about.me/lloydwood ]
>>> On Wednesday, 1 April 2020, 03:45:27 GMT+11, Marie-Jose Montpetit [
>>> mailto:[e-mail] | <[e-mail]> ] wrote:
>>> Dear NWCRG list members:
>>> There was a recent IPR disclosure related to RFC 8681 - Sliding Window Random
>>> Linear Code (RLC) Forward Erasure Correction (FEC) Schemes for FECFRAME -
>>> [ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4069/ |
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4069/ ]
>>> This refers to a patent that has me as co-inventor.  This disclosure puts me in
>>> a delicate position as the patent co-inventor hence someone who should have
>>> disclosed the IPR and at the same time as the NWCRG chair who has been
>>> following the RLC development since 2015 and should be impartial.
>>> (w/o chair hat on)
>>> 1. This patent was submitted following some work I did as an MIT researcher in
>>> Muriel Médard’s laboratory and as such all my IPR is now owned by MIT for them
>>> to license at will. It is the licensee that made the disclosure, not MIT, not
>>> me or any of the patent co-inventors most of which have been or are still
>>> involved in the NWCRG. I was not made aware of the disclosure and have no
>>> relationship with the discloser but it puts me like I said in a delicate
>>> position.
>>> According to RFC 8179 I should have disclosed this IPR at the time of the first
>>> ID in 2015 or throughout its evolution in the TSVWG from 2017-2019 and its
>>> presentations in the NWCRG meetings during that time if I felt that it was
>>> related to the work of RFC 8681. I understand the rules of 8179 for the need
>>> for timely disclosure. I did not disclose any IPR, as I did not feel that there
>>> was a direct relationship between the patent and RLC from its initial ID to the
>>> RFC. I also understand that the entity disclosing the IPR does not agree with
>>> me.
>>> As far as I am concerned, the work that lead to the patent, where I was co-PI,
>>> was a master student thesis on using network coding (the MIT/Caltech RLNC) as
>>> an alternative to some of the layer 2 reliability mechanisms in WIMAX-2
>>> networks with wider applicability to other wireless networks. The patent in
>>> thus on a novel implementation of coding not a code development.
>>> Since RFC 8681 is about developing a code with sliding windows and one that
>>> compared to the RLNC used in the patent does not allow for re-encoding. I
>>> believe our patent to be not directly related hence the reason I never pointed
>>> to the IPR. Of course the field of applicability of RFC 8681 includes wireless
>>> networks but also many others; applications are not crux of the RFC 8681. As a
>>> co-inventor I would have welcomed the discussion at our meetings or in private
>>> emails before the disclosures.
>>> (with co-chair hat one)
>>> 2. Other co-inventors from MIT and now Harvard and the disclosing entity, via
>>> one of their representatives, were present at almost every NWCRG meetings
>>> throughout the development of the RLC since 2015 and are part of our mailing
>>> list. Our patent or any other that are now disclosed against RFC 8681 was
>>> pointed out as being related. Some of the concerned participants even supported
>>> the RLC work. There is a rule in IETF that is followed by the IRTF about
>>> "timely disclosures" of related IPR. I am surprised that the disclosing entity
>>> took so long against the rule. And at every meeting we emphasized the IPR
>>> rules.
>>> Vincent and I welcome comments on this as we are strategizing for the future of
>>> the group.
>>> mjm
>>> Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.
>>> [ mailto:[e-mail] | [e-mail] ]

> --
> Emmanuel LOCHIN
> ENAC - Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile
> 7, avenue Edouard Belin CS 54005, 31055 Toulouse Cedex 4 France
> [ http://www.enac.fr/ | http://www.enac.fr ]
> [ https://elochin.github.io/ | https://elochin.github.io/ ]

> _______________________________________________
> nwcrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg