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

[Alan Clark <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan

Just to be certain, I asked one of my colleagues, who is from China and 
is a video coding expert, to review the Chinese language original of the 
patent. He stated that he saw no claims (or descriptive language in the 
body of the patent) that related to performance metrics or metrics 
reporting.

As stated in my email of 15th March, I propose that the WG does not 
continue with this draft.

Best Regards

Alan

On 3/16/16 11:40 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
> Hi Roni,
>
> You are answering now the January query which is expired. The updated 
> one is 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg01958.html.
>
> Please answer the updated question (two options).
>
> Same  for all WG participants.
>
> We solicited answers before March 22, 2016.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> *From:*Roni Even [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:09 AM
> *To:* Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'Huangyihong (Rachel)'; 'Alan Clark'; 
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to 
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
> Hi,
>
> I support option 2
>
> Roni Even
>
> *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of 
> *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 8:34 AM
> *To:* Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *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:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 5:42 AM
> *To:* Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of 
> *Huangyihong (Rachel)
> *Sent:* Friday, January 08, 2016 11:26 AM
> *To:* Alan Clark; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *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:[e-mail]] *代表 *Alan Clark
> *发送时间:* 2016年1月7日 0:21
> *收件人:* Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *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/
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_ipr_2725_&d=BQMFbw&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=kiLRy3Dy18TaCdFTLegz5r3LuHhd2B0eMVVxbhrJLt0&s=LLsGFzAZgTvcoyP_BY4A2BWWgGVV9e9ZAj16tjytCho&e=>.
>     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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>     *Alan Clark
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, January 05, 2016 10:06 PM
>     *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>         *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:55 PM
>         *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *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
>
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>         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=>
>