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

Hi Mo,

The language you suggest removing is, as you say, inconsequential to the 
draft and could easily be removed.

In fact the insertion of language from a patent into the draft without a 
coincident verbal disclosure of the patent to the WG seems rather 
strange and could be seen as a potential violation of IETF patent policy?

We should also ask why the language describing this "example" in the 
draft became much more specific between the -00 and -01 drafts, did this 
change in language tie the draft more closely to a patent?

Working Group Draft 00 - February 2015
e.g., motion vector of each macroblock, and imperceptibly embed them 
into other parts of the video frame.

Working Group Draft 01 - July 2015
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.

Clearly an implementer of the metrics reporting protocol would not need 
to implement a loss concealment algorithm in order to report the metrics 
- hence the disclosure should be withdrawn regardless of whether this 
language is present or not.

Regards

Alan

On 3/24/16 5:20 AM, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
>
> *From:*xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Mo 
> Zanaty (mzanaty)
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 24, 2016 9:09 AM
> *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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock