Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Ron <ron@debian.org> Mon, 10 November 2014 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FB51A8974 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 01:01:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQCl9iXfNLOR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 01:01:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AF21A8965 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 01:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp14-2-63-74.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO mailservice.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.63.74]) by ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2014 19:31:27 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB6CFFEDC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:31:15 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailservice.shelbyville.oz
Received: from mailservice.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailservice.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id eUIDrFr3ge6v for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:31:14 +1030 (CST)
Received: from hex.shelbyville.oz (hex.shelbyville.oz [192.168.1.6]) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90565FF81E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:31:14 +1030 (CST)
Received: by hex.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7D4B380470; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:31:14 +1030 (ACDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:31:14 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141110090114.GQ8092@hex.shelbyville.oz>
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com> <20141110040042.GO8092@hex.shelbyville.oz> <43945E76-9C03-4A50-A3DD-354D9B038639@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43945E76-9C03-4A50-A3DD-354D9B038639@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/2TBuBVMjLXsyKbutuEla0euQGXM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:01:30 -0000

On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 10:00:30PM -1000, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Ron <ron@debian.org>; wrote:
> > 
> > What am I missing that would encourage different behaviour to that in this case?
> 
> [BA] The IETF professes no expertise in assessing legal risk, nor does
> it make any warranties or provide indemnification. As a result
> implementers need to make their own risk assessments based on legal
> counsel, independent of any IETF recommendations.

Yes, I believe that's more or less exactly what I said in the part of
my question that you snipped :)

If you agree with that part, then I assume you also don't see how the
"compelling evidence" clause could ever be triggered?

So maybe someone can explain what both you and I are missing here ...


> It is particularly telling that perhaps the most salient piece of
> new information is a draft summarizing legal proceedings.

I've heard it said that one of the most telling things about that
document is that some of the proceedings it mentions are *also*
being prosecuted against H.264, yet strangely it doesn't seem to
mention that at all ...

But I profess no expertise in assessing legal risk, so maybe the
experts who compiled that document can enlighten us on that too.
I assume it was not their intention to somehow mislead this group.

  Ron