Subject: RE: [AVT] IPR in transport

From: "Allison, Art" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:43:48 -0500

So? 
It is good to block stolen material.
Nothing should  be done to facilitate unauthorized distribution of
content over the internet.  
______________
Art Allison
Director, Advanced Engineering
Science & Technology
National Association of Broadcasters
1771 N St. NW
Washington DC 20036
202 429 5418

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Andrew Daviel
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 7:33 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [AVT] IPR in transport

My $0.02, from a lurker at IETF64 this morning:

I agree with the opinion expressed at the meeting (sorry, forget the
name) that IPR in transport protocols spells trouble for network
administrators.

As a network security manager, I would like to add that if IPR in a
transport protocol means that network analyzers and IDS can not analyze
at least the transport protocol - even if a free licence is available
which nevertheless requires the user to jump through hoops, like
visiting a 3rd-party website, downloading a plugin etc - that the "safe"
response is likely to be to block the protocol completely.

There is also an issue where the security community routinely exchanges
and publishes captured protocol fragments of unfamiliar traffic in an
effort to analyze and understand hostile or problematic usage patterns.

--
Andrew Daviel, TRIUMF, Canada
Tel. +1 (604) 222-7376  (Pacific Time)
[email-masked]

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

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

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:10:10 +0000

Some background for those not at the meeting: we were told that  
Microsoft has submitted an IPR disclosure relating to draft-ietf-avt- 
rtp-vc1-01.txt. When this has been processed by the secretariat, it  
should appear on the IETF IPR page [1]. Until that time, we do not  
know the contents of the disclosure.

Policies for Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology are  
defined in RFC 3979. Section 8 of that RFC discusses how working  
groups should evaluate IPR in contributions to the IETF, and includes  
the following general policy statement:

    In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known  
IPR
    claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
    royalty-free licensing.  But IETF working groups have the discretion
    to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
    terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this
    technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims
    or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.

In some previous cases, the working group has accepted the existence  
of IPR relating to RTP payload formats (e.g. RFC 3984 is covered by  
Nokia IPR). In other cases, we have requested the authors split a  
draft into encumbered and non-encumbered parts (e.g. the payload  
format for JPEG-2000, or the split of RFC 2762 from the main RTP  
specification).

Once the details of the disclosure made by Microsoft are known, the  
working group will need to decide how to proceed with the VC-1  
payload format draft. I would urge people to read the disclosure  
before commenting, however.

Colin

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_disclosure.cgi

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:14:14 +0100 (CET)

Hi Colin, list,

> Nokia IPR).

As I mentioned in the meeting, my understanding of the IPR in RFC 3984 is
such that it reads on mechanisms in one of the optional modes; mode 2 to
be precise.  Mode 2 has significant advantages over the other modes in
certain environments.  In others, however, it is well possible to
packetize H.264/AVC data efficiently using mode 0 (used in video
conferencing systems today) and mode 1 (used by at least one Internet
streaming application).

I believe such a split may be one way out of tghe VC1 IPR situation,
perhaps not as good as splitting the draft or a free license, but IMHO
better than a RAND license covering the whole document.  Drafts can be
modified, and IPR statments can be amended, to implement such a mechanism.

Not sure whether this helps a network security guy, though.

Stephan

Disclaimer: IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), and I speak only for myself.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:19:36 +0100 (CET)

Let me add to my previous message, that the coverage of IPR to standards
should be concluded from the official documents only (IPR statements and
patents), and not from emails written  by a layman.  This is true for both
the VC1 draft and RFC 3984.

Regards,
Stephan