Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

> Do you have a reference to another technology that the IETF 
> has *mandated* as essential to implement (effectively making 
> it an IETF standard), without:
> 
>  a) The IETF having change control over that technology (even 
> if just by
>     reprinting a reference from some other source and making 
> it an RFC).
> 
>  b) Following all of the other relevant IETF process 
> requirements, such as
>     timely IPR disclosure.

The closest example to the RTCWEB working group is G.711, which the IETF does not control, and has no IPR database against it in IETF.

Yet that is mandated as MTI for the audio codec work.

But I am sure we could identify lots of work elsewhere in the IETF (if I really wanted to waste any time on a pointless exercise) where there is a fundamental normative reference to some document from another SDO, particularly areas where IETF has cooperated with other organisations.

Additionally, people still seem to be working under the misapprehension that RFC 6386 is an IETF document. It is not. It is an individual submission to the RFC editor. While the mechanisms exist to declare IPR against it in the IPR database, there is absolutely no requirement to do so in relation to any work going on in the IETF.

Keith Drage

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ron
> Sent: 20 December 2013 20:19
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)
> 
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:29:56AM -0800, David Singer wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 2013, at 10:56 , Ron <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 09:17:10AM -0800, David Singer wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>>>>> It has been pointed out that the MTI should satisfy 
> options a) 
> > >>>>>> or b) on the ietf declaration form. As matters stand 
> AVC/h264 
> > >>>>>> does not satisfy that, this has been made very clear 
> through the ISO process.
> > >> 
> > >> But at least it satisfies (c).
> > > 
> > > Does it?  Can you point me to the IETF declaration which 
> indicates this?
> > 
> > If there an IETF specification for H.264/AVC?
> > 
> > Seriously, you need to look at the ISO, IEC, and ITU databases, 
> > because that's where it is published.  The declarations are 
> all there. 
> > There are no 'unwilling to license' declarations.
> > 
> > Perhaps you didn't realize that declarations are in the 
> same place as the standard?
> > 
> > > 
> > >>>>> On the other hand, VP8 has
> > >>>>>> so far withstood court challenges, as you point out
> > >> 
> > >> I am unaware of a result from Germany still (it was expected in 
> > >> JUNE, wasn't it?). And I believe that we have been told 
> that those 
> > >> cases only involve a subset of what what was declared.
> > > 
> > > But you'd assume it's the _strongest_ subset that they think they 
> > > might be able to prove to the court.
> > 
> > In legal matters, I have long learned that assumptions are 
> dangerous.
> > 
> > >> VP8 is formally *unlicensable* at the IETF.
> > > 
> > > I don't believe that is true.  The IETF *formally* takes 
> no position 
> > > or makes no claims about the validity or applicability of 
> any declaration.
> > 
> > There is a formal declaration registered at the IETF of 
> unlicensable IPR.  
> > 
> > >  The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block  
> > > publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF 
>  Document 
> > > along the standards track.  A working group may take  into 
> > > consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating  the 
> > > technology,  ...
> > > 
> > > This wouldn't be the first working group that has had to 
> laugh off a 
> > > patently ridiculous claim in a disclosure in order to achieve a 
> > > sensible result that was in the best interest of its charter.
> > 
> > If someone makes to analyze these patents and VP8, and 
> stand behind their analysis, go ahead.
> > 
> > If you want to mandate people to ignore declarations, I 
> think you need a much stronger case.
> 
> I'm not suggesting they be ignored.  But since they don't 
> reference any part of the specification that they claim to 
> apply to, and since nobody has been able to subsequently 
> point to one, their applicability to this working group in 
> its capacity to "revise the work to attempt to avoid the IPR 
> claim" would appear to be negligible.
> 
> If nobody can identify any affected part of VP8, then there 
> doesn't seem to be any work required by the group to avoid 
> these claims.  The burden of proof would seem to have fallen 
> on the people claiming this is a blocker.
> 
> If they haven't analysed this either, they don't have much of 
> a case to refute.
> If they have, please point for the rest of us to see also.
> 
> > >> You're saying you are aware of IPR declarations against H.264
> > > 
> > > I'm still waiting for us to be informed of the reasons why IETF 
> > > sanctions shouldn't be sought against the contributors who have 
> > > failed to meet their obligations to make them.
> > 
> > Against what IETF document?
> > 
> > If we insist on a recursive closure of all normatively referenced 
> > documents, the database would be so overloaded as to be 
> unreadable and 
> > a mess.  As far as I know, no body has gone down that 
> (insane, IMHO) 
> > route, expecting that people can work out for themselves that if a 
> > document is published by body A, it may well be in body A 
> that you'll find the declarations.
> 
> Do you have a reference to another technology that the IETF 
> has *mandated* as essential to implement (effectively making 
> it an IETF standard), without:
> 
>  a) The IETF having change control over that technology (even 
> if just by
>     reprinting a reference from some other source and making 
> it an RFC).
> 
>  b) Following all of the other relevant IETF process 
> requirements, such as
>     timely IPR disclosure.
> 
> 
> As noted previously, there's a very big difference between 
> something like an optional RTP profile and a mandatory 
> appendage to some other standard.
> 
> It seems out of scope for this working group to unilaterally 
> break new ground in violation of the above requirements, and 
> I'm not aware of any precedent that we'd be following in the 
> footsteps of.  Is there one?
> 
> 
>   Ron
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>