W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Google's position on the WebRTC API

From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:51:22 -0500
Message-ID: <51EEA67A.7080607@nostrum.com>
To: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 7/23/13 09:20, tim panton wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2013, at 14:00, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> On 7/23/13 5:03 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>> With the compromise reached in the Unified Plan document,
>> Presumably http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan-00.txt
> I'll draw folks attention to this IPR claim
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2141/
> What does that mean in practice?

In practice, it has very little effect.

For those of you unfamiliar with IETF IPR policy, it is documented in 
RFC 3979:


The disclosure Tim points to is made pursuant to section 6.1.3 of that 
document. During the course of developing the unified plan, the 
applications that are mentioned in that disclosure were brought to my 

The reason it has little effect in practice is that the independent 
claims would appear to cover every plan proposal to date (plan a, plan 
b, unified plan, and even all of the "no plan" variations). 
Consequently, it does not benefit any one approach over the others.

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 15:51:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:50 UTC