Subject: [Rmt] last call on Raptor publication

From: Lorenzo Vicisano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:14:54 -0700

As you know, Digital Fountain changed the IPR statement for the FEC ID
Raptor (draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object) withdrawing the "RAND"
terms (please see the email that Mark Watson sent to this list,
attached below).

This thread is to settle once for all the position of the RMT WG on
this issue, in particular regarding whether and how the WG wants to
sponsor raptor for publication.

We have the options of:

  a) asking the IESG to publish raptor as a Standard-Track document
     (as originally planned).
  b) abandoning raptor as a WG standard
  c) asking the IESG to publish raptor as experimental or
     informational. Note that this might create problems with the
     IANA allocation of FEC IDs etc.

This issue was already discussed on this list and at the last IETF
meeting (Dallas). So far we have had some comments in favor of option
a) and no comments against it.

Please express your opinion by June 19th. If we have no feedback
by then, we will assume that the WG wishes to go for a), given the
previous discussions.

	thank you,
	Lorenzo

################# Mark's email attached below #######################

All,

As most of you are aware, Digital Fountain has to date been promoting
our core technology, DF Raptor, as an open standard in IETF RMT and
elsewhere, for any and all applications.  This mail is to let you know
about a change to that strategy: As a result of a recent, significant
new relationship that is crucial to Digital Fountain with a prime
contractor in the defense industry, our approach going forward will be
to promote Raptor as an open standard for specific markets and
applications  including of course 3GPP and DVB standards where Raptor
has already been adopted and others in future.

However, this means revising the IPR statement that we have made to
the IETF regarding draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object because, whilst
we still offer RAND terms for specific standards such as 3GPP and DVB,
we are no longer able to offer RAND terms independent of market and
application.

Going forward, there are several options regarding
draft-ietf-rmt-fec-raptor-object, including not publishing it at all.
This is of course a decision for the IETF and Digital Fountain will
not take a position in that discussion.

Best regards,

Mark Watson

Digital Fountain

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

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:39:53 -0400

I am in favor of option a. It will be interesting to hear the IESG's  
reaction.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:37:41 -0400

Can I inquire just what the DF IPR statement actually is ?

The draft
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/IDs/draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec- 
raptor-object-01.txt
says

8.  Intellectual Property

    Digital Fountain does have intellectual property rights associated
    with the technology described in this document, and intends to
    provide a full IPR statement specific to this document to the IETF
    that will satisfy the requirements of the IETF.

(BTW, this draft is apparently no longer on the RMT charter page  
under any version.)

Digging I find this
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=702
with

The Patent Holder states that its position with respect to licensing  
any patent claims contained in the patent(s) or patent application(s)  
disclosed above that would necessarily be infringed by implementation  
of the technology required by the relevant IETF specification  
("Necessary Patent Claims"), for the purpose of implementing such  
specification, is as follows(select one licensing declaration option  
only):
Unwilling to Commit to the Provisions.
-----

Is there an actual IPR statement ? I thought that there was, but I am  
perturbed not to be able to find one. I am talking to SMPTE people  
about this and have nothing really I can show them.

If there is not, then I would change my support to be in favor of  
option c, "experimental"

Regards
Marshall