Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc

"Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <keith.drage@nokia.com> Thu, 24 March 2016 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A44F12D62D for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 01:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V3k-5dXrzsVI for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 01:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB7F812D14B for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 01:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 88C36C04E263B; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:52:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u2O8q2fe013188 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:52:02 GMT
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u2O8q1rM008608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:52:02 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.185]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:52:01 +0100
From: "Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <keith.drage@nokia.com>
To: "EXT Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
Thread-Index: AQHRhWmwmfCsDy67eEi0ylJgtIs/7J9oSafw
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:52:01 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEB1A22@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <D318B652.5C910%mzanaty@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D318B652.5C910%mzanaty@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEB1A22FR712WXCHMBA11z_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/1VoDj7WSJodiMz0rm6HlQS490Jg>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xrblock/>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:52:07 -0000

I'd just note that we do not know for sure that this is the sentence that has caused the IPR declaration.

We can certainly try your proposal.

Keith

From: xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of EXT Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
Sent: 24 March 2016 01:09
To: xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc

On 3/8/16 2:27 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> We have two options:
> 1. Continue as planned with the approval and publication process
> 2. Not proceed with this document.

I would like to propose a third option:
3. Remove an inconsequential sentence in the draft and remove the IPR disclosure before progressing the draft.

After reading the draft, IPR disclosure and patent, it is very clear that the patent relates to a single "For example" sentence in section 3 d) of the draft ("Error Resilient Encoding") since they even share common language.

However, this "For example" sentence of the draft is purely informational background on some examples of loss concealment techniques within some video codec implementations. It is completely inconsequential to the rest of the draft, and does not even provide any additional motivation beyond the rest of the introductory sections.

I propose the authors remove this "For example" sentence and the IPR holders remove the IPR disclosure if it no longer applies to the revised draft.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-05#section-3

OLD:
d) Error Resilient Encoding
The sender encodes the message in a redundant way so that receiver
can correct errors using the redundant information.There are usually
two kinds of Error Resilient Encoding: One is that the redundant data
useful for error resiliency performed at the decoder can be embedded
into the compressed image/video bitstream. For example, the encoder
can select a crucial area of an original video frame, extract some
important characteristics of this area as the redundant information,
e.g., redundant motion vector of the first macroblock in a slice of
this area and redundant motion vector difference of other macroblocks
in this slice of this area, and imperceptibly embed them into other
parts of the video frame sent in a different RTP packet or in the
next frame, e.g., other slices of this area. The other is bit-block
level encoding, e.g., FEC.

NEW:
d) Error Resilient Encoding
The sender encodes the message in a redundant way so that receiver
can correct errors using the redundant information.There are usually
two kinds of Error Resilient Encoding: One is that the redundant data
useful for error resiliency performed at the decoder can be embedded
into the compressed image/video bitstream. The other is bit-block
level encoding, e.g., FEC.

If this third option is not possible, I suggest not progressing the draft (option 2).

Regards,
Mo