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

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 2 Sep 2015, at 17:50, Wang, Ye-Kui wrote:

> Hi Ben, All,
>
> The authors are discussing on how to address Stephen Farrell's DISCUSS 
> and Barry Leiba's comments. We will send our collectively responses 
> once they are ready.
>

Thanks for doing that.

> However, for the one related to the Nokia IPR statement, per Miska 
> Hannuksela, the co-author who works for Nokia, the (so-called late) 
> Nokia IPR statement (http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2508/) 
> re-iterates the IPR statement that was submitted against 
> draft-schierl-payload-rtp-h265 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1753/). Hence, the WG should have 
> been aware of the situation since 00 version of the Schierl draft.
>
> I therefore request to check whether it is possible not to delay the 
> progress of this document because of this. Thanks!

Thanks for that information. I think that clears the authors from any 
blame for not making a timely disclosure.

But I don't think that's sufficient to avoid a delay, for a couple of 
reasons. First, saying the work group "should have been aware" is not 
sufficient. The work group needs to agree that it is willing to progress 
a document with an IPR disclosure. A "should have been aware" standard 
makes it to easy for people to simply not notice.

The second is, there's no evidence in the tracker that 
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265 was a replacement to 
draft-schierl-payload-rtp-h265. I don't mean to say that it's not, just 
that the datatracker "replaces" field does not show it. Without the 
replaces information, an IPR search on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265 does 
not show the disclosure for the older draft. Now, I recognize this is a 
silly clerical issue--but the effect is that working group participants 
were highly likely to miss the existence of the older disclosure when 
considering draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265.

It's too late to put the draft back on tomorrow's telechat in any case. 
But if the chairs make a working group consensus call concerning the 
Nokia disclosure in the next few days, and the results are to proceed, I 
will put it back on the earliest possible telechat agenda.

Thanks!

Ben.


>
> BR, YK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 1:13 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; Stephen Farrell
> Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on 
> draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> Hi,
>
> Stephen's discuss item 2 pointed out that we had a late IPR disclosure 
> on this draft after the publication request. I am in discussions with 
> the chairs on how to handle this.  I have removed it from the agenda 
> for the September 3 telechat. I hope to put it on a future telechat 
> once we agree on a way forward.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
> On 1 Sep 2015, at 7:49, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [...]
>
>>
>>
>> (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?
>
> [...]