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

[Alan Clark <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roni

In that case I propose that the WG does not continue with this draft.

Best Regards

Alan

On 3/15/16 5:47 PM, Roni Even wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My understanding so far is that the IPR disclosure was done by a party 
> who do not attend the IETF meetings and do not follow the work closely 
> but randomly.  So IPR in this case may appear a bit late, and this 
> does not contradict RFC3979.
>
> BTW: according to RFC3979 IPR declaration can appear even for 
> published RFCs which is not the case here.
>
> This information about the reason for delay was already sent to the list.
>
> As for clarification on the IPR, I think that it was also answered 
> saying that it was submitted to comply with the IETF IPR policy 
> RFC3979 and not by the contributors who were not aware of the IPR 
> according to their claims.
>
> The WG chairs brought the question back to the WG about accepting the 
> document with this IPR, so it is now back with the WG.
>
> I think that the issue that Alan had about the relation of the Patent 
> to the document got a response on the list, I do not think that we 
> should start a discussion about the content of the patent on the 
> mailing list. We can see that Alan believes that the patent is not 
> related (in which case there is no problem) and the party that 
> submitted the IPR, who is not on the mailing list, thinks it relates.
>
> So I am not sure what open questions are still there about the IPR 
> itself, do you want to discuss the IPR validity, propose changes to 
> the document?
>
> Roni
>
> *From:*Bernard Aboba [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:51 PM
> *To:* Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
> *Cc:* EXT Alan Clark; Roni Even; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to 
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
> I support Keith and Alan on this.
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB) 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> I have to support Alan on this.
>
> We should remember that the WG approved this document as a WG document 
> without any IPR disclosure being present. The ideal time to sort this 
> out should have been with an IPR disclosure prior to WG adoption, and 
> not once that decision has been made.
>
> Part of the IETF process on IPR is the seeking of clarification on IPR 
> disclosures, and so far no response has been made. Given the delay in 
> the IPR declaration was longer than so far has been allowed for a 
> response, it is clear that the wheels have not all turned yet.
>
> My belief is that we should wait until these issues are clear and 
> questions answered, and then proceed with a new call as to whether the 
> document is now appropriate to publish.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith Drage
>
> *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>] *On Behalf Of *EXT Alan Clark
> *Sent:* 10 March 2016 23:14
>
>
> *To:* Roni Even; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to 
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
> Hi Roni
>
> So I guess if a company made an IPR disclosure that stated their 
> electric toaster patent applied to the draft then you would express no 
> opinion?  I'm not as willing to suppress my views on IPR issues - I've 
> been dealing with patent claims related to standards since the 
> mid-1980's and have always tried to honor both the word and spirit of 
> the patent policy of the standards organizations I've been involved 
> with.  I've also been involved in patent litigation and patent 
> licensing discussions many times and know at first hand the complexity 
> and cost involved.  As a WG we should have the interests of potential 
> implementers at heart, both from a technical perspective and in 
> minimizing legal obstacles to implementation.
>
> If the WG wants to proceed with this then so be it - however in that 
> case I will request that I am removed as an author as I cannot support 
> this draft under those circumstances.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Alan
>
> On 3/10/16 5:49 PM, Roni Even wrote:
>
>     Hi Alan,
>
>     Inline
>
>     Roni
>
>     *From:*Alan Clark [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:39 PM
>     *To:* Roni Even; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
>     draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>     Hi Roni
>
>     The WG certainly has the option of not proceeding with a draft
>     given that an IPR disclosure has been made against it - more so
>     given that the disclosure was not made during any of the working
>     sessions (according to IETF policy).
>
>     */[Roni Even] Rachel already stated that she was not aware of the
>     IPR and the disclosure in the meeting by a participant is only if
>     you know of such IPR which was not the case here!!/*
>
>
>
>     Have you personally reviewed the patent in question?  I suggest
>     that it would be a good idea to do so as this is not a borderline
>     case of "does this loss concealment algorithm implement anything
>     in that loss concealment patent", there is a major disconnect
>     between the subject matter of the draft and the patent.
>
>     */[Roni Even] Again I am not the right person to judge the IPR and
>     I believe that this is the case for most IETF participants. You
>     can say that this is your personal view which may be right or wrong./*
>
>
>
>     Going back to my original proposal from some weeks ago - I
>     requested that Huawei internally review their patent against the
>     draft to verify that it does apply.  It appears to me to be a
>     simple case of text matching "loss concealment" rather than an
>     actual technical review of applicability. Rachel offered to ask
>     the question and we have not had a reply.
>
>     Regards
>
>     Alan
>
>     On 3/10/16 9:11 AM, Roni Even wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         I am not sure that the IETF WGs are the body that make a
>         decision if an IPR is valid or not. So I will argue that we
>         can proceed with the document. I think that the licensing
>         terms are OK with the IETF policies and there should be no
>         reason to stop the publication
>
>         Thanks
>
>         Roni Even
>
>         *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>         *Alan Clark
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, March 09, 2016 6:30 PM
>         *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
>         draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>         Dan
>
>         I reviewed (again) the patent cited by Huawei in this
>         disclosure and was not able to find any claims or descriptions
>         related to metrics and reporting - only details of a video
>         loss concealment algorithm, and the draft identifies only a
>         reporting protocol and not a video codec; I will caveat this
>         by saying that I've reviewed the English translation of the
>         Chinese patent.
>
>         While IETF patent policy does not require companies to defend
>         their disclosures and does state that the IETF does not take a
>         position on whether a patent does or does not apply to a
>         draft/RFC I think it sets a bad precedent if a WG does not
>         take objection to disclosures that appear to be irrelevant.
>         Saying "are you sure about this?" to the disclosing company
>         does not mean that the WG is making any statement on
>         infringement, but does IMHO represent a reasonable degree of
>         due diligence on behalf of the WG. If we don't push back on
>         disclosing companies when we feel that the disclosure is based
>         on an invalid understanding of the draft then we are doing a
>         disservice to implementers and making the IPR situation more
>         complex and messy than it already is.
>
>         My position is that we should not proceed with this document,
>         based on the information we have at this time.
>
>         Regards
>
>         Alan Clark
>
>
>         On 3/8/16 7:41 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
>             ALL WG participants – please answer this question before
>             March 22, 2016.
>
>             Thanks and Regards,
>
>             Dan
>
>             *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
>             Behalf Of *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>             *Sent:* Tuesday, March 08, 2016 2:27 PM
>             *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related
>             to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>             Hi,
>
>             We did not receive any answer to the request for further
>             information.
>
>             At this point in time, we ask the working group to express
>             their opinion about what to do with
>              draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc.
>
>             We have two options:
>
>             1.Continue as planned with the approval and publication
>             process
>
>             2.Not proceed with this document.
>
>             All WG participants – please express you preference for
>             option #1 or option #2.
>
>             Thanks and Regards,
>
>             Dan
>
>             *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
>             Behalf Of *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>             *Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2016 11:29 AM
>             *To:* Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; [e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related
>             to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>             Hi,
>
>             There was one answer to this mail (from Alan) expressing
>             preference for option #1. Let us go with it.
>
>             Rachel, it would be good if you can send your colleagues a
>             reminder.
>
>             Thanks and Regards,
>
>             Dan
>
>             *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]
>             <mailto:[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 – 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 – 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] <mailto:[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]
>             <mailto:[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
>
>             *发件人**:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *代表
>             *Alan Clark
>             *发送时间**:*2016年1月7日0:21
>             *收件人**:*Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             *主题**:*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 – 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:[e-mail]] *On
>                 Behalf Of *Alan Clark
>                 *Sent:* Tuesday, January 05, 2016 10:06 PM
>                 *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 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
>
>                     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                     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=>
>
>
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             xrblock mailing list
>
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>