Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 02 September 2015 23:36 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DFF1B38C9; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9KXl0yQm2nzL; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A1631ACE8C; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t82Na5AS050877 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Sep 2015 18:36:15 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Wang, Ye-Kui" <yekuiw@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 18:36:05 -0500
Message-ID: <605D88DA-3C79-49B2-A01C-51BAEA68AA9B@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <7716c02481654eed90dc8ff754efb7b3@NALASEXR01H.na.qualcomm.com>
References: <20150901124947.6862.19178.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3145A183-A9DA-47FD-A8F3-2708365D7FFD@nostrum.com> <7716c02481654eed90dc8ff754efb7b3@NALASEXR01H.na.qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5107)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/EGzlMBLuayJe9AmWn6fojvFSM5E>
Cc: art-ads@ietf.org, payload-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265@ietf.org, payload@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/payload/>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 23:36:23 -0000
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:ben@nostrum.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 1:13 PM > To: payload-chairs@ietf.org; payload@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265@ietf.org > Cc: art-ads@ietf.org; 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? > > [...]
- [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Wang, Ye-Kui
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Wang, Ye-Kui
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Roni Even
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-… Stephen Farrell