Subject: [AVT] Progressing the RTP no-op payload format

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:35:23 +0100

The No-Op Payload Format for RTP (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-no-op-04.txt) is  
technically complete. There has been, however, some discussion on IPR  
relating to the draft: see http://www1.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr- 
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-no-op-04.txt and http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ 
web/avt/current/msg08380.html and followups.

My understanding is that some claims on the patent application are  
sufficiently broad that it will be difficult to develop a no-op  
format which is not covered, should the patent be awarded. Given  
this, and the IPR statement linked above, I'd like to ask the working  
group two questions, so we can decide how to proceed with the draft:

1) Do you believe an RTP no-op payload format is useful to  
standardise, given the other keep alive mechanisms that now exist?

2) Do you believe the working group should proceed with this  
particular draft?

Response to the list preferred, but private responses accepted and  
I'll summarise.

Thanks,
Colin (as chair)

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

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:50:00 +0100

On 1 Aug 2007, at 12:35, Colin Perkins wrote:
> The No-Op Payload Format for RTP (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-no-op-04.txt)  
> is technically complete. There has been, however, some discussion  
> on IPR relating to the draft: see http://www1.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/ 
> cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-avt-rtp-no-op-04.txt and http://www1.ietf.org/ 
> mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg08380.html and followups.
>
> this, and the IPR statement linked above, I'd like to ask the  
> working group two questions, so we can decide how to proceed with  
> the draft:
>

No response - is everybody on vacation, or is there no interest in  
pursuing this draft?

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