Subject: Re: [AVT] Retransmission draft

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:21:39 +0100

On Wednesday, Jul 30, 2003, at 14:12 Europe/London, Jose Rey wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:25 PM
>> To: Jose Rey
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: [AVT] Retransmission draft
>>
>>
>> Jose,
>>
>> --> "Jose Rey" <[email-masked]> writes:
>>> for your information:
>>>
>>> Matsushita has sent an IPR disclosure to the IETF IPR website 
>>> regarding
>>> patent rights applicable to the draft-ietf-rtp-retransmission-08.txt.
>>>
>>> More information can be found under http://www.ietf.org/ipr
>>
>> Is it possible for you to elaborate on which parts of the
>> retransmission format are covered by the Matsushita IPR?
>
> The disclosed IPR covers the fact that a packet has two sequence 
> numbers, one of each is used to determine the transmission order and 
> the other one is for the reproduction order.  Applying this to the 
> draft these two sequence numbers map to the "standard" RTP SN and to 
> the Original Sequence Number (OSN) fields, respectively.

This would imply that it's not possible to implement the payload format 
without infringing on the IPR?

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: "Jose Rey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:15:48 +0200

> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:22 PM
> To: Jose Rey
> Cc: [email-masked]

Exactly, it is not possible to implement the 
payload format without infringing on the IPR.

cheers,

Jose

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:28:20 +0100

On Wednesday, Sep 3, 2003, at 09:15 Europe/London, Jose Rey wrote:
...
> payload format without infringing on the IPR.

A question to the working group: since it's not possible to implement
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-09.txt without infringing a patent,
does it make sense for this to be published as a Proposed Standard?

Given that there are FEC solutions that do not appear to be encumbered,
should we consider the retransmission draft for an Informational RFC
instead?

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:49:35 +0200

Hi,

This mail is my personal comments, not as an WG chair!

> should we consider the retransmission draft for an Informational RFC

I think that it still makes sense to publish this a Proposed Standard. 
My arguments are:

- First I think that it is important to make the solution of 
retransmission available in a standardized way. By publishing it as 
proposed standard the normative text is in force. The solution then is 
possible to implement in an interoperable way.

- As the solution are not a core technology, however something that 
allows for more bandwidth optimized error recovery, it can be used by 
applications where one can license the rights for the benefit.

- The method is commonly used and if as indicated there is no way around 
the patent, and it is valid then having a proposed standard for it and 
using it, or not having a proposed standard and still using it, the 
proposed standard way will have less problem.

These are my arguments why it should be published as a proposed 
standard. However I would hope that Jose can provide some more details 
about the patent so that everyone can judge it validity. Also the patent 
statement is still not available on the IETF page.

If Matsushita would provide a more specified statement making this 
license free or at least some better statement I also think there would 
be less problem to go ahead.

Best Regards

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]