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

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Thu, 17 March 2016 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC2C12D873 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 zRfXl0xnf8MP for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8393312D721 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id l68so10829863wml.0 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :thread-index:content-language; bh=kVjGfp5DCUPy/yaKLBpur68FPHuBcFsrj7w7DfEGaSU=; b=hdcKpfdHTG0Krunbz1u7ErzFkibNXXkMUw2WWpKyPTIj1uLEZZN0muhyra7HQ6qj2j 51/HHLKm1W3nfncLKaGG3nVpLSP9s/Jr+IHEIkIyIuIEtDk+202f/YllzYE5MDpGF9n4 7Qrjv402+QIGpzXhOqIuV8hlrKYFwzklPujTRn+ChLa7L5uiXpx/3TP/k34HWuyAN2fy 62FLVwQsPFacgszHkZWbBRxXX75Nq5IMY6DgpOERE2Sg/BItHi+7gkYgF726wtc+xodg Tw32kguQz5FmFbfQsQlYT8AVkdBeZxw3Qbq98JNx2uP2Q6jHkYlzBwKtGaFujDJMZQjC 3whQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=kVjGfp5DCUPy/yaKLBpur68FPHuBcFsrj7w7DfEGaSU=; b=QHjM3fRoT9fOXr5uCMk7HyF+L6C6ShcZ+j0ILIAAGJaqQY4ajHJES/XFjry1I/AEkV 2E3o9RYfrstWLWYdIQpUhj9/DEpwP69ddJbZ//zeHuhbTJW4mEnQiUQNcosbVdP+Rcav aqaO8Sr9bV4FTjR6GYVF/bL9bBfGF8sLwcoCqi1FX4HewqobaOcI0Cg60/C5nAxaG/Wo JcVzkR/A38Y8FYTQaUir0PayKHi0ekZ1JLXVMu+4OeuFJ2d7wKzh3tOy6wdQZTjfBGE1 eSYaDlTFKPk9oywIxlFkwkiKC/FG877mT+gJUGAOe/nNSuUowpo09tfhg5yVNeRXuU48 W1mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLtnRJ9Z+PiIZhvs3JaxubzCeZnrghvtW4AqscxPCK0LQqnDckRr1gjzz6/+yPecA==
X-Received: by 10.28.63.13 with SMTP id m13mr35790787wma.55.1458195019909; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniPC (bzq-79-182-56-247.red.bezeqint.net. [79.182.56.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v188sm28382322wmv.3.2016.03.16.23.10.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "'Huangyihong \(Rachel\)'" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>, "'Alan Clark'" <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>, <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> <568D3F00.7060609@telchemy.com> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86E78FCC@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86E81284@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEFD273@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <1a0d01d17fd0$6db94ac0$492be040$@gmail.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BF90F11@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BF90F11@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:10:14 +0200
Message-ID: <1a2e01d18013$acdddc50$069994f0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1A2F_01D18024.706AA3F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHT/wrGLhiLkBLV2YmKI4sv10jSnAL+hxJVAS51pHEBzuRkYwFGyAMFAl4ae8ABlNfV9gHzlDPiAecdRIAB6V14b57QW53Q
Content-Language: he
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/ciXYKJVmBC7o20mD1tO4nUUOBoY>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:10:25 -0000

Hi Dan,

To make it clear I support to continue as planned with the approval and
publication process

 

Roni

 

 

 

From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:40 AM
To: Roni Even; 'Huangyihong (Rachel)'; 'Alan Clark'; xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc

 

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:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:09 AM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'Huangyihong (Rachel)'; 'Alan Clark';
xrblock@ietf.org
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:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan
(Dan)
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 8:34 AM
To: Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; xrblock@ietf.org
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:rachel.huang@huawei.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 5:42 AM
To: Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
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:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Huangyihong
(Rachel)
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 11:26 AM
To: Alan Clark; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
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:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] ´ú±í Alan Clark
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2016Äê1ÔÂ7ÈÕ 0:21
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
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: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
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
xrblock@ietf.org
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=>