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

Thanks for the clarifications!

Reminded by your comments below, I further checked and noticed that the Qualcomm IPR declaration (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2118/) that was made on the individual draft was not included in the list of IPR declarations during the last calls too. My search did not indicate other IPR declarations possibly not (fully) mentioned during last calls.

WG chairs, please take this into account too when addressing Ben's request below.

BR, YK

-----Original Message-----
From: payload [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 4:40 PM
To: Wang, Ye-Kui
Cc: art-ads@ietf.org; payload-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265@ietf.org; payload@ietf.org; Stephen Farrell
Subject: Re: [payload] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 2 Sep 2015, at 18:36, Ben Campbell wrote:

> 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.

Oops, I meant to add "or point me to where the working group explicitly discussed the disclosure with respect to draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265".

Ben.

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