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

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <> Fri, 29 January 2016 03:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E291B3825 for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:42:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.238
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.238 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6aYYj3V5Er8A for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B52481B3824 for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:42:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CDP85084; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 03:42:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 03:42:07 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:41:58 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <>
To: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <>, Alan Clark <>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
Thread-Index: AdE38D9G6xGjB4mWRa6CeaSXXvzLEwPxHFnA///5lgCAATdsAIAAHA0A//1SepD/2Z2qsA==
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 03:41:57 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86E81284nkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.56AADF91.004C, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: f19c3fc2bc720df9e3f51f4228b28997
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 03:42:15 -0000

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.


From: xrblock [] On Behalf Of Huangyihong (Rachel)
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 11:26 AM
To: Alan Clark; Romascanu, Dan (Dan);
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.


·¢¼þÈË: xrblock [] ´ú±í Alan Clark
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2016Äê1ÔÂ7ÈÕ 0:21
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Romascanu, Dan (Dan);<>
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 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.



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 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,


From: xrblock [] On Behalf Of Alan Clark
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 10:06 PM
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.



On 1/5/16 7:34 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

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,


From: xrblock [] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:55 PM
Subject: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc


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<>jZv_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,



xrblock mailing list<><>