[rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 20 December 2013 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 B0E5F1AE1DA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:30:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] 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 DXmOJUbLwpqN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:30:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6DC1AE0D3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:30:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FDC39E467 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OqOMbiAs1IIg for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.17] (unknown [188.113.88.47]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE9A839E16F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52B40035.2010308@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:45 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA+E6M0m5O1OqjBm13qNoRAtYZKwOs+4fs3evyO2VuuO1uqQ5eA@mail.gmail.com> <CED773F0.2D6AA%stewe@stewe.org> <20131219033000.GK3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CA+E6M0n9frSRbbrXh=jczQETX13HX6LDGUCq2P4=6voXx93ZVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp8n2m5XNC8UfDswGfD=0qCPaddcsrg08FJKXnDsz-A+tWqzQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+E6M0mwWVEAv6zeET1fwdL6oDB-Cxag64XNV1EJhk-oP3241g@mail.gmail.com> <52B38E3E.1040801@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <52B38E3E.1040801@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060100070604060902020707"
Subject: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)
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: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 08:30:40 -0000

On 12/20/2013 01:24 AM, cowwoc wrote:
> +1.
>
> Every time I see someone voting YES for one option and NO for 
> everything else (a pattern that keeps on repeating) I question whether 
> they are genuinely looking for a compromise.

Just as a matter of truth-in-advertising:

So far (19 positions that I've noticed) there have been no opinion 
statements (I don't want to use the word "vote", since the chairs have 
called for an opinion poll) with 15 NO positions. There have been (by my 
count) 8 opinion statements with a single YES position, and 7 opinion 
statements with 10 or more NO positions, but there isn't a single 
statement with YES for one option and NO for everything else.

(Roman comes close with one ACCEPTABLE and everything else NO ... well 
played!)

The division is pretty clear, and pretty sharp, but it's not 
*completely* black and white.

>
> Gili
>
> On 19/12/2013 2:32 AM, Mohammed Raad wrote:
>> Well, many of those same people saying that they only want to 
>> maintain one codec have been more than willing to keep on developing 
>> new standardized codecs and to pile on profiles, which, in many 
>> practical situations means different code bases.
>>
>> A compromise, by definition, is taking what one can get, which simply 
>> has to be acceptable and may not match what one was aiming for.
>>
>> What members of this WG have been saying, and writing, is that they 
>> want interoperability. OK, so that can be achieved with at least one 
>> of the options in the straw poll that VP8 proponents have indicated 
>> is acceptable. It would seem logical and reasonable to expect AVC 
>> proponents to take up that option also. I started commenting when I 
>> noticed that was not happening, which raised the question in my mind 
>> as to whether or not there is an intention to achieve 
>> interoperability, or whether there were still genuine 
>> misunderstandings wrt the IPR situation.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Mohammed
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer 
>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com <mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     I think the biggest problem is that people only want to maintain code
>>     for one codec. If you already have H.264 support implemented, you
>>     will
>>     oppose every other codec, no matter how big the advantages.
>>     Therefore, a compromise is not possible with such a position.
>>
>>     Silvia.
>>
>>
>>     On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Mohammed Raad
>>     <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com <mailto:mohammedsraad@raadtech.com>>
>>     wrote:
>>     > Correct on changing the subject line, this really started as a
>>     clarification
>>     > question and then grew, sorry.
>>     >
>>     > What is relevant to the straw poll thread is that we should
>>     have a correct
>>     > summary of where the IPR situation really is.
>>     >
>>     > It has been pointed out that the MTI should satisfy options a)
>>     or b) on the
>>     > ietf declaration form. As matters stand AVC/h264 does not
>>     satisfy that, this
>>     > has been made very clear through the ISO process. On the other
>>     hand, VP8 has
>>     > so far withstood court challenges, as you point out - something
>>     which AVC
>>     > could not BTW - and the technology owning entities willing to
>>     license VP8
>>     > relevant technology under the required royalty free terms has grown
>>     > significantly during the past year.
>>     >
>>     > It would seem very clear that the codec that is closer to the
>>     royalty free
>>     > ideal situation is VP8.
>>     >
>>     > As such, it is surprising to see AVC proponents opposing the
>>     adoption of
>>     > VP8, even as one of two MTI codecs - something that VP8
>>     proponents appear to
>>     > be saying is acceptable - based on IPR arguments.
>>     >
>>     > If members of this WG wish to move towards a compromise that
>>     allows webrtc
>>     > to fulfill the potential that it has then this is their
>>     opportunity. I
>>     > certainly encourage them to take this opportunity.
>>     >
>>     > Mohammed
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > Please people, changing the subject for side discussions like
>>     the Chairs
>>     > requested isn't rocket science ...
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:47:14PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>     >> My gosh.  Nokia has people at the IETF, and they made statements
>>     >> and have not minced words.
>>     >
>>     > They also have people making statements in the courts, where they
>>     > seem to be getting, well, thoroughly minced!
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > The interesting question isn't Nokia's intention here, I don't
>>     think
>>     > anyone seriously doubts what it is.  The interesting questions are
>>     > twofold:
>>     >
>>     >  a) Do they even have the slimmest leg to stand on with their
>>     claims
>>     >     against VP8?  There's so far no supporting evidence to say that
>>     >     they do, and plenty stacking up against them.
>>     >
>>     >  b) Given their stubborn refusal to make any declaration about
>>     their
>>     >     intentions or IPR for H.264 here, does anybody have even the
>>     >     slightest idea what their terms are for licencing the Cisco
>>     blob?
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > Meritorious or meretricious, the devil is in such little details.
>>     >
>>     >   Ron
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > rtcweb mailing list
>>     > rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > rtcweb mailing list
>>     > rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>     >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Mohammed Raad, PhD.
>> Partner
>> RAADTECH CONSULTING
>> P.O. Box 113
>> Warrawong
>> NSW 2502 Australia
>> Phone: +61 414451478
>> Email: mohammedsraad@raadtech.com <mailto:mohammedsraad@raadtech.com>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb