Subject: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:33:46 +0200

Dear all,

The draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 is scheduled for the upcoming IESG 
telechat on April 26th.

And as your new Area Director I have a question about the WG's view on 
the IPR. There are by today (April 20th) 4 IPR disclosures with respect 
to this draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_tag=draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor

What is the opinion of the WG about those IPR disclosures? Is there any 
disagreement to move the draft forward or are all fine with the current 
state?

Thanks in advance,

   Martin

-- 
IETF Transport Area Director

[email-masked]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
Registered in England 283

---

From: "Luby, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:29:40 +0000

Just for information, only 1711 is relevant, all the others are obsolete.
Also, 1711 exactly mirrors the IPR statements for RFC 5053 and RFC 6330
(these are the original Raptor and RaptorQ specifications for object
delivery developed in RMT).

On 4/20/12 5:33 AM, "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

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

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:18:44 +0200

Hi Michael,

Ok, good to know!

Thanks

   Martin

On 04/20/2012 06:29 PM, Luby, Michael wrote:
> On 4/20/12 5:33 AM, "Martin Stiemerling"<[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:37:24 +0200

There has been no answer to my below question about what the WG's 
opinion about the IPR disclosure is.

I read the silence as 'don not like' the IPR unless the WG speaks up and 
tells me the opposite.

Please note that this draft is on the IESG telechat for this Thursday 
(2012-04-26).
I guess the IESG will ask exactly my question and it would be good to 
have a response from the WG.

Thanks

   Martin -- your responsible Area Director

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:15:36 +0000

FWIW, I don’t have a particular problem with this IPR on Raptor drafts. Raptor is used in several places and I don’t see why not we should document it properly within the FEC framework.

-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:37 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10
>

---

From: "Luby, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:28:26 +0000

Also, in the draft IESG writeup, it says:
 
	There has been controversy over this document. It represents WG consensus.
	IPR was declared, and announced in 2009
	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg00514.html
	and again in 2011
	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg00886.html.
	The WG didn't seem to care, and had no comments about the IPR.

I believe that the first sentence is a typo, I.e., it should say "There
has been no controversy over this document", as I don't remember any
controversy with this document.

Mike

On 4/24/12 8:15 AM, "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>FWIW, I don¹t have a particular problem with this IPR on Raptor drafts.
>Raptor is used in several places and I don¹t see why not we should
>document it properly within the FEC framework.
>
>-acbegen
>

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:47:17 +0000

+1
Stephan

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:47:53 +0200

Ok, thanks for your feedback so far!

This helps for sure in the upcoming IESG discussions.

Thanks,

   Martin

On 04/24/2012 07:47 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> +1
> Stephan
>
> On 4.24.2012 08:15 , "Ali C. Begen (abegen)"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>