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

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Thu, 24 March 2016 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rachel.huang@huawei.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 CD7CA12D5E3 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WQR6I7JoPe2A for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A12E12D1AD for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CGN38800; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:20:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:20:18 +0000
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.56]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:20:11 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
Thread-Index: AQHRhWmw6xGjB4mWRa6CeaSXXvzLE59oI79A
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:20:11 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86E9A96F@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <D318B652.5C910%mzanaty@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D318B652.5C910%mzanaty@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.191]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86E9A96Fnkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A010205.56F3B15C.00A2, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.56, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: f19c3fc2bc720df9e3f51f4228b28997
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/ivuZCRUQ-lHRBNLz3-qqGwH098I>
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, 24 Mar 2016 09:20:35 -0000

Hi Mo,

Thank you for your proposal. I'm okay with this option. Let us see what other people say.

BR,
Rachel

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