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

Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com> Wed, 06 January 2016 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637DC1B2DD1 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 08:21:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989] autolearn=ham
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 fUjqoRqHZrYA for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 08:21:55 -0800 (PST)
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 7EDF41B2D5E for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 08:21:50 -0800 (PST)
X-SBRS: None
X-HAT: Sender Group GREYLIST_RELAY, Policy $GREYLIST_RELAY applied.
X-Hostname: omx02bay.sys.cbeyond.net
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2B4EQDCPo1W/8HTD0Vegm5MUm2CYoV3s1YBDYFkGAEIgj6CZkcBAgKBIzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKCQUBAYQkAQEBBAEBASpBChELDQQCAgEBAQkMCgEHBwkDAgECARUfCQgGAQwGAgEBBYgmBQnCCgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARiLVYQ3AQEpDh0JhCYFjjCIWoVCiW9Kg3mDHgyFMYpUg3MgAQFCgWBqgV4gNAEBAYQcgUIBAQE
X-IPAS-Result: A2B4EQDCPo1W/8HTD0Vegm5MUm2CYoV3s1YBDYFkGAEIgj6CZkcBAgKBIzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKCQUBAYQkAQEBBAEBASpBChELDQQCAgEBAQkMCgEHBwkDAgECARUfCQgGAQwGAgEBBYgmBQnCCgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARiLVYQ3AQEpDh0JhCYFjjCIWoVCiW9Kg3mDHgyFMYpUg3MgAQFCgWBqgV4gNAEBAYQcgUIBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,529,1444708800"; d="scan'208,217";a="208241362"
Received: from unknown (HELO Alans-MBP.telchemy.com) ([69.15.211.193]) by omx.cbeyond.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 06 Jan 2016 11:21:23 -0500
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEC8D0F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEDD449@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <568C223A.6050009@telchemy.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEDE582@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
From: Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
Message-ID: <568D3F00.7060609@telchemy.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:21:20 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEDE582@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070705050004080104000104"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/SQvKmhYM1FMNPcBKGNNsVvcJJMk>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:21:58 -0000

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] *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] *On Behalf Of
>     *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:55 PM
>     *To:* xrblock@ietf.org <mailto: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 athttp://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 <mailto: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=>
>