Re: [nwcrg] Recent IPR disclosure against RFC 8681

[Emmanuel Lochin <[e-mail]>]

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, [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 [e-mail] http://about.me/lloydwood
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 1 April 2020, 03:45:27 GMT+11, Marie-Jose Montpetit <[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/
>> 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.
>> [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
https://elochin.github.io/