Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Stephan,
I am trying to remember but this Nokia IPR was submitted December 2014 after we sent the document to publication and we had two meetings since (Dallas and Prague). Was it discussed before on earlier version of the document?
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: payload [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05 AM
To: Stephan Wenger
Cc: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265@ietf.org; payload-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG; payload@ietf.org; Stephen Farrell
Subject: Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 4 Sep 2015, at 16:07, Stephan Wenger wrote:

>> (2) This is just a process nit probably. The shepherd write-up 
>> doesn't mention the Nokia IPR declaration.  Were the WG also ok with 
>> that one? The write-up seems to pre-date that latest IPR declaration, 
>> which is from a company that seems to employ one of the authors. That 
>> is odd timing really so can someone explain the sequence of events 
>> and why all is well?
>
>
> I will leave the chairs and Ben to sort this out.  However, I remember 
> quite clearly that I myself pointed out during IETF payload sessions 
> the Nokia IPR at least once, including my understanding of the scope 
> of protection and its limitation to certain optional modes of 
> operation.  I don’t believe that these discussions were minuted, but 
> they probably can be found in audio records.  In other words, yes, the 
> Nokia IPR was raised in the WG, and in a level of detail rather 
> uncommon for such discussions.  Really, no regular follower of the 
> payload WG should be surprised of this.

There's a separate discussion of the IPR issue (and that has turned up a QualComm disclosure that was showing in the tracker for the same reason the Nokia one did not.) My personal opinion is that we need to follow a higher standard than "people should be aware/not surprised"; we really explicit WG discussion about whether it wants to progress the draft in the face of a disclosure.

That being said, do you know (or can you guess) which meeting might have an audio record of the discussion?

Thanks!

Ben.

_______________________________________________
payload mailing list
payload@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload