Subject: [Rmt] Digital Fountain IPR statement on draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object

From: "Mark Watson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:19:21 -0500

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: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:03:57 +0100

> take a position in that discussion.
[Without any hats on, just my personal individual opinion]

I think this is very unfortunate with this change of the IPR statement. 
However, my personal position is that the WG should publish this draft 
as a proposed standard document. The main reason I have is that not 
publishing it would create a huge problem for all the other 
standardization organizations that already have decided to use Raptor as 
FEC code in their usage of RMT technology.

Also I don't see a major disadvantage with this publication. It is not 
like we are selecting the single solution to be used in all the places. 
This is one FEC code and we have all the mechanisms in place to define 
and use a number of these. So I think the WG should continue to work on 
other FEC code solutions which is good enough and has better licensing 
propositions for everyone, i.e. preferably IPR free.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:52:55 +0300

Hi All

Also with cap off (and no liability for affiliated share prices or
instantaneous combustion)...

I tend to agree with Magnus. There's no doubt that the situation is very
far from perfect for Internet community value, but Raptor is only one of
3 active RMT FEC codes and it has an excellent foothold in 3GPP, so it
would add value to "other standards organization" when using the IETF
RMT work. So in a way, that has a good knock-on effect for harmonisation
with other RMT results.

>From the IETF-only perspective, informational would probably be the most
appropriate if there were RMT or IESG concerns with the "no RAND for
IETF". However, informational is not good for harmonisation as it would
be highly unusual for another standards body to take an Informational
RFC as normative (leading to the risk of erroneously divergent use of
"The Raptor" FEC id - 1?).

So I think Raptor to PS is the best option available.

A parallel consideration is that Mark suggested in Paris that DF also
have patent coverage on some other FEC techniques. I won't pretend to
play lawyer, but it wouldn't harm to get a feeling whether DF see that
only Raptor needs protecting from wild Internet usage or whether other
FEC codes might be beyond RAND in the case at DF feels it holds claims
on other FEC families. (Obviously raising these sordid questions isn't
something anyone likes to do, however as Magnus's suggestion of
"preferably IPR free" might turn into a significant issue for Internet
use of FEC codes if a single declared IPR has implications for all RMT
FEC proposals, not just "the single solution" - ordinarily "free to
RAND" would be sufficient for me).

So now I'm eagerly waiting for the RMT minutes to discover if I'm with
the masses or in the minority, and whether the IPR discussion was a
blood bath or a Sunday picnic...

</Cap back on>

Cheers, Rod.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 16 March, 2006 15:04
>To: Mark Watson
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Rmt] Digital Fountain IPR statementon 
>draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object
>
>Mark Watson wrote:
>> 
>> This is of course a decision for the IETF and Digital Fountain will 
>> not take a position in that discussion.
>> 
>However, my personal position is that the WG should publish 
>this draft as a proposed standard document. The main reason I 
>have is that not publishing it would create a huge problem for 
>all the other standardization organizations that already have 
>decided to use Raptor as FEC code in their usage of RMT technology.
>
>Also I don't see a major disadvantage with this publication. 
>It is not like we are selecting the single solution to be used 
>in all the places. 
>This is one FEC code and we have all the mechanisms in place 
>to define and use a number of these. So I think the WG should 
>continue to work on other FEC code solutions which is good 
>enough and has better licensing propositions for everyone, 
>i.e. preferably IPR free.
>
>Cheers
>
>Magnus Westerlund
>