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 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:[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?
>>
>> [...]