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

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

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.