IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 24 July 2013 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6AB11E81CE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mPDUUG+u0Xl0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C5911E81C7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=753; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374636486; x=1375846086; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=41hIwIKnSZfksIzHM3/B/99JbCUtAI0VJlfXDNjcfUs=; b=OnH8H1hBMkDorEqI99bM1MCc11gHTIRZGC6Zz1GKXceEreRzzNmKibts 4qyhYedG6VfzfUGh7SnhpHXZ7sN/gX5/yWxmCa+IQq/7FrM+CORkvv8Uz bukzhgx+wilB0evDfqIVSO23vyeU6eocQ1cbuZrsarGZEv+xMIRiegIIt s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlMFAGVJ71GtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABbgwaBBYJCvj2BFBZ0giUBAQR5EAIBCCIkMiUCBA4FCIgIuCGPRwIxB4MSbgOpLIMUgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,732,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="238410081"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2013 03:28:05 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6O3S4mJ014590 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:28:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.29]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:28:04 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR
Thread-Index: AQHOiB3OuqDQS1ow4keRzpHBNABLMg==
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:28:04 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB113608094@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <CAD5OKxsspqwpEOWkVgDUjY0aJ-taSUAbt3x=GfgZ-ORdZKU+-Q@mail.gmail.com> <51EEB495.4070404@nostrum.com> <51EEFC6B.9090503@bbs.darktech.org> <CA+9kkMBwBP2p5UG95h7rY9CAwUpXpRiLKjne-bEn0pX2gooS7w@mail.gmail.com> <51EF0057.2060801@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <51EF0057.2060801@bbs.darktech.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <1454C6474E555C409745779FC56331FA@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:28:11 -0000

On Jul 23, 2013, at 4:14 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>> 	• Is there a way to retrofit the API so those of us who do not want/need to use SDP are not forced to license this IPR? For example, the specification states that the initial offer/answer mechanism is out of scope. Could we do the same for SDP?

I think that you should have a read of the patent before deciding what the best mitigation is. The IETF generally does prefer to  avoid IPR where it can and some people have been working towards that. 

I'd also like to note that I far as I can tell right now, Ericsson did make all the required disclosures promptly. They did disclose all this long ago when they published their relevant draft.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email