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

Hi Roni,

It may have been buried in tall the emails, but my understanding is the 
Dec 2014 Nokia disclosure was an update of an earlier disclosure made 
against the pre-wg version of the draft. But because the tracker does 
not show payload-rtp-h265 as replacing the older version, it didn't 
apply the earlier discloser to the working group draft.

Ben.

On 5 Sep 2015, at 22:31, Stephan Wenger wrote:

> On 9/5/15, 14:17, "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> The Nokia IPR was discussed way earlier, probably around the Berlin 
> IETF.  Let me dig a bit...
> Stephan
>
>> 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
>>