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

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

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]
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 ¨C 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 ¨C 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]
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]
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

 

·¢¼þÈË: xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] ´ú±í Alan Clark
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2016Äê1ÔÂ7ÈÕ 0:21
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]
Ö÷Ìâ: 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
¨C see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2725/
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_i
pr_2725_&d=BQMFbw&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRu
cPvdrphpBsFA&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]
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]
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-2Darc
hive_web_xrblock_current_msg01914.html&d=BQMFAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I
4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&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 ¨C 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]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_l
istinfo_xrblock&d=BQMD-g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQ
fucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=QnXfHHtrCWuOTN6ltI1OQl5JKpT1vIEt5lm6yyUl-K0&s=ZDjj6FP8
ei9wzWsi7L54u3cKecOhJxcBl4LP8yojwBQ&e=>