Subject: [rtcweb] Allegations of misconduct (was: Re: H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof))

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 05:11:40 +0000

Hi Harald,

I have stopped responding to this thread (and the recent MTI codec
discussions in general), because it veered into uninformed evangelism and
advocacy territory long ago, and I¹m not interested at all to discuss at
that level.  However, you are one of the people with some authority in
interpreting the IETF IPR policy.  I can¹t ignore your email and let your
unfounded allegations of misconduct (and that is what the end of your
email, cited below, constitutes, despite its nicer wording) stand without
response. 

Your reading of the IPR policy is not inline with mine.

Note that this email has nothing to do with details such as WG draft
status, and a lot with the broader issue of disclosure obligations against
any IETF contribution.  I agree with you that WG status of an ID has
nothing to do with the definition of IETF contribution.  That is why I
changed the subject line.  However, I am in full compliance with the
IETF¹s 
IPR rules.  Let me explain my reasoning why I don¹t make an IETF IPR
disclosure
against IPR I am admittedly reasonably and personally aware of that
pertains to VP8 and H.264, and my contributions to rtcweb.

VP8: I don¹t have to disclose, as I have not Contributed to VP8.

H.264: I don¹t have to disclose, because while I have contributed to
H.264, included patented technology, I have not done so in an IETF
Contribution.

Non-normative video encoder tricks: I don¹t have to disclose, because
regarding those few tricks I have disclosed in an IETF contribution (for
example the loop filter things around H.261), I¹m not reasonably and
personally aware of IPR that would be necessarily infringed and which any
of my employers/sponsors/clients has the right to license.  I agree that
if I were aware of such IPR, my level of Contribution (describing actual
technology in technical terms, not merely pointing towards another
document) would have triggered a disclosure obligation.

Normative references to H.264 and VP8: I don¹t have to disclose, because
the IETF IPR rules do not require me to disclose against merely
normatively referenced specs (be they IETF or non-IETF specs), even if I
contributed the normative reference in an IETF contribution.  In that
regard, let me note three further points.

(1) None of the IETF policy documents contain an explicit requirement for
disclosure against normatively referenced specs.
(2) At least in the area of IPR encumbered media codec specs being
normatively referenced by IETF documents (mandatory or optional), there is
no history of IPR disclosures.  The majority of IETF documents that
normatively reference media coding specs are RTP payload formats--an area
I¹m very familiar with.  There is not a single IPR disclosure against the
media codec technology itself that I¹m aware of in any disclosures related
to payload formats.  That is despite the fact that the majority of payload
formats are authored by people familiar with the coding technologies, and
the IPR-ridden nature of most media codecs.  OTOH, there are tons of
payload formats with no IPR disclosures against them, that normatively
reference coding technologies that are well known as being encumbered.
I¹m also not aware of IPR disclosures against IETF RFCs that normatively
reference encumbered IETF specs, for example in the field of security.
Clearly, if there were a doubt in the interpretation of the policy docs
themselves, one would probably look at past interpretations.  Not that I
personally see a need to consult past conduct, though.
(3) The requirement of disclosure against normative references is a
heavily debated (and, in at least one case: litigated) subject outside of
the IETF, with company positions at least entrenched as in the (relatively
speaking: minor) question of an MTI video codec in rtcweb.  I do not
expect a discussion of this subject on this list as likely to be
particularly productive.  I mentioned the subject only to provide you with
an insight into my rationale, not to trigger a broader discussion.  (If
such a discussion were wanted ipr@ietf would probably be a better venue).

Best regards,
Stephan

On 12.16.2013, 05:43 , "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On 12/16/2013 12:09 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2013 01:50 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>>>> Of course if you really do want an IETF IPR disclosure under way, then
>>>> submit a draft that makes both codecs mandatory and asks for it to be
>>>>a
>>>> WG item. The codec declarations will have to be made against that
>>>> document. But do you really believe that will produce any surprise
>>>> declarations.
>>>>
>>>> That draft WG document at the moment does not exist.
>>> Keith, it is completely unclear to me why such a draft would cause more
>>> disclosures to come forth, given that we have one draft proposing
>>> declaring H.264 CBP mandatory that caused no IPR disclosures, and
>>> another draft proposing declaring VP8 mandatory that, again, caused no
>>> IPR disclosures.
>> It looks to me as though the expectation is that once a document is made
>> an official Working Group draft then others than those contributing the
>> draft have to make disclosures, and since as far as I can tell the draft
>> to make VP8 mandatory is not an official Working Group draft, making it
>> one would then cause more disclosures to come forth, as you put it. That
>> expectation might not be justified but the interpretation of the comment
>> above seemed straightforward.
>This may be an expectation that some people have, but it has no
>grounding whatsoever in the IETF IPR disclosure rules, where the gating
>factor is that it has been "contributed", and that others "realize" that
>the IPR they know about applies to the contribution.
>
>RFC 3979 section 6.2.1 is pretty explicit. Nowhere in the document is
>the concept of "working group draft" mentioned.
>
>It's been pointed out any number of times that this is what the rules say.
>
>I won't dictate anyone's actions - there are plenty of reasons (some
>good, some bad) that people might conclude that the right action for
>them is to act in ways that are not in accordance with the rules - but
>the rules say what they say - and that does NOT mention "working group
>draft adoption"; the rules apply to ANYTHING that is contributed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:57:10 +0100

> email, cited below, constitutes, despite its nicer wording) stand without

Stephan, no allegiations of misconduct was intended. If I ever intend to
accuse you of misconduct, I assure you that you will have no doubt
whatsoever that that's what I'm doing!

At this time, I was not revisiting the areas where we disagree, and
where I wish IETF practical consensus were different than it seems to
be; I was merely addressing the *new* wrong idea that whether a draft is
"adopted by the WG" makes a difference to whether or not the rules say
that one has to disclose IPR.

With the number of ideas I disagree with floating around in the IPR
area, I have also stopped responding on people who repeat common
misunderstandings; the reason I chose to respond on this one was that it
was a new one.

But since we're here..... repeating the plot for the benefit of new
readers....

> H.264, included patented technology, I have not done so in an IETF

Here's an area where we are known to disagree. I think that a
contribution that says technology X MUST be used by technology Y should
trigger a disclosure obligation on technology X for anyone who
contributes to the discussion on whether or not to adopt that statement,
as long as that information may contribute to letting the WG make an
informed decision.

But it's clear that I'm neither in the majority nor in conformance with
recent practice in the IETF on this viewpoint, so this is my version of
"And I also believe Carthago should be destroyed"

(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est for the reference).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est>
> disclosure against normatively referenced specs.
I agree.
> personally see a need to consult past conduct, though.
This is an area where I think that it matters if it matters....

when a group decides to standardize (or review) an RTP payload format,
the group has already decided to encapsulate that encoding. It doesn't
matter for the choice of RTP payload format what the IPR on the
referenced technology is. Therefore, since disclosures won't make a
difference, and it's real work to make one, it's reasonable to say
"don't bother".

The RTCWEB case is different; we can choose whether to require the use
of the technology or not. Therefore, the information matters, and when
the information matters, it should be disclosed.

But as I said above - I don't believe the IETF can be said to agree with
me here. Carthago should be destroyed.

> such a discussion were wanted ipr@ietf would probably be a better venue).

Agreed. The latest spate of messages on this subject in that list, which
occured in April 2013, didn't seem to me to reach a conclusion.

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:58:07 -0800

> as long as that information may contribute to letting the WG make an

Normative language in a specification defines the syntax and semantics 
of the thing being specified.

It does not make much sense to handle IPR differently for normative text 
that includes details by reference (citation) rather than by inline 
explication.  In terms of the syntax and semantics, the specification is 
an integrated whole.

If there is an legal distinction between inline normative reference, 
versus citation-based inclusion, which is relevant to the interpretation 
of IETF IPR rules, then some lawyers should provide the community with 
expert opinions on the matter.

Absent a clear and compelling presentation from legal experts, common 
sense needs to prevail in the IETF's interpretation of its rules.

Our rule is quite simple:  participation obligates disclosure.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net