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

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

On 12/21/13, 7:41 AM, "Jack Moffitt" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> This sounds like a dangerous loophole to let any party block basically
>> anything and I hope there are provisions in place to mitigate such
>> scenarios.

In the IETF, there is no automatic blocking of a standard proposal due to
a ³not willing to license² declaration.  In fact, the IETF does not
require any form of licensing, and there exists RFCs which had at some
time in their history ³not willing to license² declarations against them.
This is in contrast to organizations like W3C, ISO, or ITU, where there is
a minimum requirement for licensing terms.

>
>Opus had several of these.

Nonsense.  Really, people, try to do a minimum of homework before
commenting.

Opus has against it a number of declarations indicating RAND terms (in
addition to a few with other royalty free terms).  That¹s a whole world
different from ³unwilling to license².


> It is still MTI for WebRTC because the
>group was convinced the claims are spurious.

The group, as a whole made the decision to include Opus as MTI.  The
reasons for that decision is that there was rough consensus in the group.
That¹s it.  The group did not determine that claims are ³spurious².  The
IETF and its working groups do not take position on validity or
infringement, nor should they.  I, for one, accepted Opus as MTI not
because I think those claims are ³spurious², but because I knew there is a
fallback, namely G.711.  Others may have other motivations.

>As far as I know there is
>no formal way to respond to such claims or get them removed. Each
>member must decide for themselves whether the claim is valid or not.

 That much is true, except that the IETF does not have a membership
concept.

>
>jack.
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb