Subject: [Fecframe] RE: Comments of FECFrame Charter

From: "Mark Watson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:57:13 -0500

Gorry,

When you say "IPR-free" do you mean that there should be no patent
declarations submitted to the IETF for the solution or no
_royalty-bearing_ declarations ?

If the latter then I agree this should be an objective.

The former might be unrealistic: it could only be achieved by a "trial
and error" process through which people make technical proposals and
then wait to see if anyone finds they are required to make an IPR
statement according to the IETF rules. There is lots of IPR in the world
on the application of FEC to streaming and so this could take some time
and end up with a non-optimal solution.

Regarding Digital Fountain's IPR statement, we have taken advice from
the ADs and are just in the process of internally reviewing the new
statement, so you should see it soon.

Regards,

Mark Watson

-----Original Message-----
From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Mark Watson
Subject: Comments of FECFrame Charter

1) I know this has been raised before, but I have serious concerns about
the
introduction of IPR into the IETF transport layer. I feel this is
totally
inappropriate way to design IETF-specified Internet Transport.

I'd feel very much happier if this charter Explicitly identified that
the
Architecture/Framework PS would itself be IPR-free. Is there some way
this
can be expressed in the Charter as a drive to an OPEN framework?

2) I'm unsure about the word "considered".

Can you clarify what is meant by the goal of:
 "Other usages will be considered and prioritized,"
--- Is this within the PS?
--- ... Or the WG?
--- ... Does that mean this "other" RFCs are expected with this Charter?

3) At the moment I see the WG developing one concrete PS on a Framework.
--- presumably relating to transport over UDP, DCCP and supporting
RTP/RTCP?

4) I'm a little fuzzy about the August 2007 deadline, and what exactly
this
will be delivering.
--- Can you clarify a little?

Best wishes,

Gorry

_______________________________________________
Fecframe mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:56:27 +0000

I am aware of several IPR claims in this area. I do not wish to comment 
on specific IPR statements, but it seems that the approach taken by the 
group to establish a new framework must be unencumbered with royalty 
payments, etc. Keeping such claims to particular codec formats, etc 
would seem a good compromise.

If the "IPR-isms" on the framework are more restrictive... then this may 
be the wrong way to go.

Gorry

---

From: "Stephan Wenger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:22:24 +0200

While I agree in principle with Gorry's statement below, I would prefer NOT
to burden the charter with aspects of the IPR situation.  It should be up to
the WG to decide whether known IPR is sufficiently beneficial for the
Internet to allow its inclusion.

My two cents,
Stephan (Speaking only for myself)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Gorry Fairhurst
Sent: Tuesday, 06 December, 2005 19:56
To: Mark Watson
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Fecframe] Re: Comments of FECFrame Charter

Gorry