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

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Keith

I am not sure what are the issues you support. In my view there is one issue.

 

The IPR was submitted late and that is why the WG chairs asked the question if to proceed or not and they are still waiting to get responses, the only comment so far was Alan’s.

 

Rachel stated that she was not aware of the IPR and the IPR submission was done without any knowledge from her part by other body in this large company. I hope they will find a way to prevent such cases but I assume that this can happen in big organtizations.

 

As far as I understand what Alan is saying is that he objects to publish the draft since in his view this IPR does not relate to the draft. I think that this issue would have also been stated if the IPR was submitted earlier in the process. 

 

I do not think from reading Alan’s post that he objects to IPR in general if they relate to the document.

I did not see any issues with the IPR policy.

 

Thanks

Roni

 

 

From: Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:56 AM
To: EXT Alan Clark; Roni Even; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc

 

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]] On Behalf Of EXT Alan Clark
Sent: 10 March 2016 23:14
To: Roni Even; [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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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-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]
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]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock