[xrblock] Handling of IPR within the XRBLOCK WG and draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-06.txt

Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com> Thu, 31 March 2016 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <alan.d.clark@telchemy.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 DAE7712D67C for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 MBy7iNhe-edt for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omx.cbeyond.com (omx.cbeyond.com [50.20.30.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0F7F12D5E4 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-SBRS: None
X-HAT: Sender Group GREYLIST_RELAY_PORT587, Policy $GREYLIST_RELAY applied.
X-Hostname: omx01bay.sys.cbeyond.net
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2D+AQDcS/1W/8HTD0VdgzS6V4IPAQ2BcYdSOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeFQCkUDAoYAwIBAgFLDQgBAYgjBaFXoQuPYYUXBZdygSuHOo5yhT6PFR4BAUKBNgEBCAIBb4FRIIkdAQEB
X-IPAS-Result: A2D+AQDcS/1W/8HTD0VdgzS6V4IPAQ2BcYdSOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeFQCkUDAoYAwIBAgFLDQgBAYgjBaFXoQuPYYUXBZdygSuHOo5yhT6PFR4BAUKBNgEBCAIBb4FRIIkdAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,422,1454994000"; d="scan'208,217";a="201327117"
Received: from unknown (HELO Alans-MBP.telchemy.com) ([69.15.211.193]) by omx.cbeyond.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 31 Mar 2016 12:14:49 -0400
From: Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
To: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Message-ID: <56FD4CF8.1000206@telchemy.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:14:48 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050101040402050403070105"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/7xbQN0MQGr1t9s6nHjKD0tqDO_k>
Subject: [xrblock] Handling of IPR within the XRBLOCK WG and draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-06.txt
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, 31 Mar 2016 16:14:53 -0000

Dan,

It is good that the WG has found a way forward with the video-lc draft. 
Bearing in mind the difficulty in getting a response from the company 
that made the patent disclosure, I think that the WG should not progress 
the draft until the IPR disclosure is actually withdrawn.

There were a number of statements made within the XRBLOCK WG during the 
last months about what the IETF and the WG could and could not do with 
regard to patent disclosures, and some XRBLOCK participants were 
presenting the view that we should not even discuss whether or how a 
patent may apply to a draft. The IETF IPR WG appear to have considered 
this and if we look at the guidelines for WG's provided in RFC 3669:

"The IETF as a whole, and a working group as a whole, takes no stance on 
the validity of any IPR claim.  It would be inappropriate for a working 
group chair to declare that consensus had been reached that, for 
example, a company's patent was invalid.  Individual participants will 
need to use whatever legal advice resources they have access to in order 
to form their own individual opinions. /Discussions about the validity 
of IPR may take place under the auspices of the working group, in 
particular about relative risks of technology choices.  Individual 
participants may take these discussions into account.  The working group 
as a body may not take a stance on validity, but it may make choices 
based on perceived ris/k."

So - this essentially states that the IETF and the WG should not take a 
position on the validity of a patent however that individuals may form 
opinions on the validity of patents, WG may discuss these opinions and 
they may affect the choices made by the WG.  As a WG we have followed 
the letter and spirit of the IETF guidelines in considering the 
applicability of the disclosed patent to the draft.

I asked to be removed as an author from this draft as text that was 
inserted into the draft by another author caused the draft to be subject 
to a patent disclosure by that author's company, however the IPR was not 
disclosed at the time and the inserted text was non-essential and not 
directly relevant to the purpose of the document.
The inserted example text described a specific video loss concealment 
algorithm, claimed in a patent, whereas the draft only defines metrics 
for reporting the proportion of video that was loss concealed, duration 
of frame freezes and similar measurements. The patent described a 
specific algorithm for video loss concealment and contained no text or 
claims that related to metrics or performance measurement.  If the 
patent was required in order to implement the draft then the removal of 
the offending text would change the operation of the protocol or the 
value of the metrics reported, whereas the removal of the text will in 
fact make no difference at all.

So - hopefully Huawei withdraw their IPR disclosure and the draft moves 
forward to become an RFC.

Best Regards

Alan Clark