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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Tue, 15 March 2016 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 11CC812DD58 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 JjpCYYyjbBWF for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A983512DD52 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id h129so35052072ywb.1 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AVtyrKnqlz2HJQ53pZCOsXnqp2XW6i1Y+FhvYzkax7E=; b=E16C6gN1JbamwiHwuaGmJQFEScX0p2griJn+3q2LhRu9aEFf2i6RbB2SIVMB0XJveH dhqe1CW18soN5Rbp0fukfeRDdNtktcxIBmgrTaK0pD2ADhO6HooPI87mgLm60FVUUWKt M2JGNgX5hFtM/JdHbgT0AIMEABrUB17xMCX/YoXUeEzEL5PJfADfATEKbVBvY9+JFZth xT/VPCKOC3Z/uG0Mg4BKuGqNv44TJkofussaeiHikI8aRx2/hr9jT0E/Kw2xD4BFqFh3 ViXv/Hn72x8l8lKjBaGu+8D1SkAKbK6Vp2l5oGdUQzBoD687xAOBvIjo5ON6uWCLI8Yh mU+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AVtyrKnqlz2HJQ53pZCOsXnqp2XW6i1Y+FhvYzkax7E=; b=gbyxqJ+kh3lPlFnUvJn+lGfS7EFs743MHb9lStQqgWrMw8qGx8jfEgTx7/y1NBTbmS 9NTyxnpWCU6fozMoXrusKOS9zeTdUVO0aInKQVthUtzk7JgDkl/foNyUDXGZCDwn6bbd 2xuJAQxHoW4+uqwt4ciMN8DTl9fOFUozAC80Kf7VzlCR8flY2K0MHZazbr2bbkfM81Z4 XnFs0nVZSXGxhpymbv8ytd6hH2tE41Q7udGMd2agmokhJgc69X/1Fe0blb3grhx5FvxE GaF7/okr+oPrf01PWtdcXkKFFIxxBOvMTVCvRs/1366Qek0DjTk6sIWGMMrHZhd39HjP xy3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLT/2Zp3P7aSOOskRm+8zPieAT84CWUO0nD9qyYMe6DS0Vp6fnhYgJpWaf9IMkpMWL74zHTOChpbf945A==
X-Received: by 10.37.109.68 with SMTP id i65mr17005960ybc.91.1458071497783; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.16.87 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEA66BF@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEC8D0F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEDD449@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <568C223A.6050009@telchemy.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEDE582@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <568D3F00.7060609@telchemy.com> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86E78FCC@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86E81284@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEFD273@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BF0C7DF@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BF83F5B@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BF83FA4@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <56E04F94.8070504@telchemy.com> <14df01d17ad6$cf173650$6d45a2f0$@gmail.com> <56E186EC.1030700@telchemy.com> <154e01d17b1f$1f8ea620$5eabf260$@gmail.com> <56E1FFC9.3040506@telchemy.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEA66BF@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:51:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dvb3Zt5GmEFJpm-sevWDzrYNOhP+c1M+FB_X0vWC4C9LQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <keith.drage@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11414ee0aedf60052e1bb92d"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/ASFX_Qc5Yl1v4CEYdHFQ5DIZ6bs>
Cc: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:51:42 -0000

I support Keith and Alan on this.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB) <
keith.drage@nokia.com> wrote:

> I have to support Alan on this.
>
>
>
> We should remember that the WG approved this document as a WG document
> without any IPR disclosure being present. The ideal time to sort this out
> should have been with an IPR disclosure prior to WG adoption, and not once
> that decision has been made.
>
>
>
> Part of the IETF process on IPR is the seeking of clarification on IPR
> disclosures, and so far no response has been made. Given the delay in the
> IPR declaration was longer than so far has been allowed for a response, it
> is clear that the wheels have not all turned yet.
>
>
>
> My belief is that we should wait until these issues are clear and
> questions answered, and then proceed with a new call as to whether the
> document is now appropriate to publish.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Keith Drage
>
>
>
> *From:* xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *EXT Alan
> Clark
> *Sent:* 10 March 2016 23:14
>
> *To:* Roni Even; xrblock@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> Hi Roni
>
> So I guess if a company made an IPR disclosure that stated their electric
> toaster patent applied to the draft then you would express no opinion?  I'm
> not as willing to suppress my views on IPR issues - I've been dealing with
> patent claims related to standards since the mid-1980's and have always
> tried to honor both the word and spirit of the patent policy of the
> standards organizations I've been involved with.  I've also been involved
> in patent litigation and patent licensing discussions many times and know
> at first hand the complexity and cost involved.  As a WG we should have the
> interests of potential implementers at heart, both from a technical
> perspective and in minimizing legal obstacles to implementation.
>
> If the WG wants to proceed with this then so be it - however in that case
> I will request that I am removed as an author as I cannot support this
> draft under those circumstances.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Alan
>
> On 3/10/16 5:49 PM, Roni Even wrote:
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> Inline
>
> Roni
>
>
>
> *From:* Alan Clark [mailto:alan.d.clark@telchemy.com
> <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:39 PM
> *To:* Roni Even; xrblock@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> Hi Roni
>
> The WG certainly has the option of not proceeding with a draft given that
> an IPR disclosure has been made against it - more so given that the
> disclosure was not made during any of the working sessions (according to
> IETF policy).
>
> *[Roni Even] Rachel already stated that she was not aware of the IPR and
> the disclosure in the meeting by a participant is only if you know of such
> IPR which was not the case here!!*
>
>
>
> Have you personally reviewed the patent in question?  I suggest that it
> would be a good idea to do so as this is not a borderline case of "does
> this loss concealment algorithm implement anything in that loss concealment
> patent", there is a major disconnect between the subject matter of the
> draft and the patent.
>
> *[Roni Even] Again I am not the right person to judge the IPR and I
> believe that this is the case for most IETF participants. You can say that
> this is your personal view which may be right or wrong.*
>
>
>
> Going back to my original proposal from some weeks ago - I requested that
> Huawei internally review their patent against the draft to verify that it
> does apply.  It appears to me to be a simple case of text matching "loss
> concealment" rather than an actual technical review of applicability.
> Rachel offered to ask the question and we have not had a reply.
>
> Regards
>
> Alan
>
> On 3/10/16 9:11 AM, Roni Even wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure that the IETF WGs are the body that make a decision if an
> IPR is valid or not. So I will argue that we can proceed with the document.
> I think that the licensing terms are OK with the IETF policies and there
> should be no reason to stop the publication
>
> Thanks
>
> Roni Even
>
>
>
> *From:* xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org
> <xrblock-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alan Clark
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 09, 2016 6:30 PM
> *To:* xrblock@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> Dan
>
> I reviewed (again) the patent cited by Huawei in this disclosure and was
> not able to find any claims or descriptions related to metrics and
> reporting - only details of a video loss concealment algorithm, and the
> draft identifies only a reporting protocol and not a video codec; I will
> caveat this by saying that I've reviewed the English translation of the
> Chinese patent.
>
> While IETF patent policy does not require companies to defend their
> disclosures and does state that the IETF does not take a position on
> whether a patent does or does not apply to a draft/RFC I think it sets a
> bad precedent if a WG does not take objection to disclosures that appear to
> be irrelevant. Saying "are you sure about this?" to the disclosing company
> does not mean that the WG is making any statement on infringement, but does
> IMHO represent a reasonable degree of due diligence on behalf of the WG. If
> we don't push back on disclosing companies when we feel that the disclosure
> is based on an invalid understanding of the draft then we are doing a
> disservice to implementers and making the IPR situation more complex and
> messy than it already is.
>
> My position is that we should not proceed with this document, based on the
> information we have at this time.
>
> Regards
>
> Alan Clark
>
>
>
> On 3/8/16 7:41 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
> ALL WG participants – please answer this question before March 22, 2016.
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org
> <xrblock-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 08, 2016 2:27 PM
> *To:* xrblock@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> We did not receive any answer to the request for further information.
>
>
>
> At this point in time, we ask the working group to express their opinion
> about what to do with  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc.
>
>
>
> We have two options:
>
>
>
> 1.       Continue as planned with the approval and publication process
>
> 2.       Not proceed with this document.
>
>
>
> All WG participants – please express you preference for option #1 or
> option #2.
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org
> <xrblock-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2016 11:29 AM
> *To:* Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; xrblock@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> There was one answer to this mail (from Alan) expressing preference for
> option #1. Let us go with it.
>
>
>
> Rachel, it would be good if you can send your colleagues a reminder.
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org
> <xrblock-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 8:34 AM
> *To:* Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; xrblock@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> Thanks, Rachel, for the information and for the efforts to clarify the
> issue with the legal affairs department at your company.
>
>
>
> We have a few more options about what to do next.
>
>
>
> 1.  Wait a few more weeks for an answer with further information – I
> suggest no later than February 29, 2016
>
> 2. Proceed with the draft given the information available
>
> 3. Not proceed with the draft
>
>
>
> All WG members – please express your preference.
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Huangyihong (Rachel) [mailto:rachel.huang@huawei.com
> <rachel.huang@huawei.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 5:42 AM
> *To:* Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; Romascanu, Dan (Dan);
> xrblock@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Sorry for so late response to the mailing list.
>
>
>
> I have forwarded this IPR issue to our legal affairs department
> responsible for this IPR disclosure. However, I didn’t get any information
> for now. And I’m not sure if they have any that could be shared within the
> mailing list or not (We all know that IETF policy doesn’t require the
> company to analysis and verify the applying, which is what the legal team
> or even court  should do when meeting some legal problems).
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, I can’t do any clarification for them in public since we’re
> totally different departments. It will against our company’s law. …So it’s
> not within my control. Hope WG could understand that.
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
> *From:* xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org
> <xrblock-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Huangyihong (Rachel)
> *Sent:* Friday, January 08, 2016 11:26 AM
> *To:* Alan Clark; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Sorry for the late response. I’m in a business trip these two weeks with
> sporadic email access. So I may not respond timely.
>
> This IPR is from another department so I’m not quite familiar with it.
> I’ll invite the colleague who’s the IPR holder or responsible for the IPR
> disclosure to clarify in the mailing list. Hope we can find some way to
> solve this issue.
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
> *发件人**:* xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org
> <xrblock-bounces@ietf.org>] *代表 *Alan Clark
> *发送时间:* 2016年1月7日 0:21
> *收件人:* Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
> *主题:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> Hi Dan
>
> Within the IETF patent policy there is no requirement that I'm aware of
> that requires a disclosing company to prove that the patent they reference
> does in fact apply to the draft/RFC, which means that companies could make
> disclosure statements that don't actually apply to the referenced
> draft/RFC. In many larger companies the IPR/legal team may be distant from
> the engineering team and I've seen cases in which allegations of
> infringement were made based on a text match rather than a technical
> analysis. If, as WG members, we feel that a disclosure may be inappropriate
> based on a technical understanding of the draft/RFC and the patent then
> IMHO we should be willing to politely point this out - if the disclosing
> company wants to keep the disclosure anyway then we have to leave it to
> individual implementers to obtain their own legal advice; my view is that
> as WG members and authors we should try and keep the IPR situation as clear
> as possible.
>
> I've encountered exactly this situation - my company develops software
> that analyzes voice/ audio/ video stream performance and as part of this we
> model the performance of a wide range of voice/ audio and video codecs. We
> have been contacted numerous times by companies that have codec IPR and who
> see that we analyze streams encoded with the G.xyz codec - we then have to
> explain that we don't actually implement the codec, only a parametric model.
>
> So - my position is that we should ask Rachel, as an author and a
> representative of the disclosing company, to request that Huawei verify
> that their disclosure does, in their opinion, apply.
>
> Regards
>
> Alan
>
>
> On 1/6/16 9:40 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
> Hi Alan,
>
>
>
> The statement that was posted a few weeks back explicitly refers to this
> I-D – see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2725/. Of course, anybody can
> comment within the rules, but the fact that the disclosing company
> considers the IPR related to this I-D is public information.
>
>
>
> What is your position as WG participant and as co-author of the document?
> What should the WG do?
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org
> <xrblock-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alan Clark
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 05, 2016 10:06 PM
> *To:* xrblock@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> I reviewed the patent that the disclosure related to - this appears to
> describe a method for video coding that uses loss concealment and not a
> method of reporting the effectiveness of loss concealment. It is of course
> the responsibility of the IPR holder to verify that their patent does in
> fact apply to the Draft/RFC to which their disclosure statement applies.  I
> suggest that the WG chairs ask the participants from the disclosing company
> to check to see if this disclosure is in fact relevant to the draft.
>
> Regards
>
> Alan
>
> On 1/5/16 7:34 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> There were no responses to this query. Please express your opinions on the
> mail list whether we should continue as planned with the approval for this
> I-D.
>
>
>
> Possible options (other may apply):
>
>
>
> 1.       Continue as planned
>
> 2.       Do not continue
>
> 3.       Continue, but first do …
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org
> <xrblock-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:55 PM
> *To:* xrblock@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> As you may have seen an IPR disclosure that pertains to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc was submitted recently. The announcement on the XRBLOCK mail list with  more information can be read at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg01914.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_xrblock_current_msg01914.html&d=BQMFAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=JT0PNFMVTwcCOwfJFWR9rPXwWO3aXrz-8hcAnDMibu4&s=Y212mtSrLAN6yGGEigFnx-qwjZv_a0r5MpWucZswumg&e=>.
>
>
>
> This I-D was on the agenda of the IESG telechat this Thursday 12/17. Our AD decided to defer this I-D to the next telechat scheduled for January 7, 2016 and asked us to confirm on the mail list that the WG still plans to proceed with the I-D.
>
>
>
> Taking into account this new information – do the participants in the WG want to proceed with the approval of this Internet-Draft? Please state your opinions on the WG mail list until Monday January 4, 2016.
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> xrblock mailing list
>
> xrblock@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_xrblock&d=BQMD-g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=QnXfHHtrCWuOTN6ltI1OQl5JKpT1vIEt5lm6yyUl-K0&s=ZDjj6FP8ei9wzWsi7L54u3cKecOhJxcBl4LP8yojwBQ&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> xrblock mailing list
>
> xrblock@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>
>