Re: [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: H.264 patent licensing options)

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 11 December 2014 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 3C2AC1A887B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:18:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 cb9qbP3VQZZX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (mail-vc0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED9861A8A56 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hy4so3056487vcb.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:17:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fNdRWZevCCST2AupT7i4FVVKh1q5qaG66O/S1KnXvNU=; b=EzdJAJDuMQaziib+rnu2n0o14wEccGyFdPlvzRDG/3qoD0QF6a3SXX+zuCTMNU4/L2 0uX3gNZVBbfeWSiWgmDIGiG1W/YinRAMjju1DV5MMgC24eCaxcYZcUB92UDM8UqACQ9J tHCGZ/ESmnCxezviT6ooXeAVFyedHiESrFPtgiHIcivXmRCFOu64qaU5HMwhmtNPpnTC a7A0POCJh9gkz3pCzsdjGNp4aSlVB6vWgZFVuSTFcX6hWKxzg5xcI6wdkRHvWv06HCRm IlDE+Gct8HIqp0CkEWpzodDDtVZaSjF5mLqD6LPB6i9g0YG2jsQMkxS+FvGp3q0ULXTL /IwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7rgQkG9ou28JAmDCwEnxVdafVE4g3ASFcD0GLTkd+iw7SdtNHTHfgfpa3/1KZLMqx9Jt/
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.10.198 with SMTP id k6mr7855956vdb.38.1418339873157; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.139.9 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:17:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <548A1288.7040001@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AC05@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <63BC3D6D-03A1-41C2-B92D-C8DD57DC51DB@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998ADF1@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <87d27r9o0a.fsf_-_@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com> <87iohisl7h.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CAD5OKxs-L+1J7csFtTMThn+EF10kkAe_4-kpZ8jj59qmBV=CGQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141211183248.GE47023@verdi> <CAL02cgQzkE3j-s2fdho9GBgTb4-bgCHqoMR3L0RP5QkRoqqZSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgRcqHdVr0g28DMLQdpPnXeH6FwUVitQRBhHmGuAcmcMsA@mail.gmail.com> <5489F2DE.8030602@bbs.darktech.org> <CAL02cgT8Avt5idjUutyqi1J1hMXpKDDN1RBW88JT_ertDqr1dA@mail.gmail.com> <548A1288.7040001@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:17:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQVE41=Z3K4PkuVDJY9t6w4fB_KiEu6jw6wgkOgxYxJSQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30334e254f865b0509f8fcca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Ahp5s_ShNDRNRLvysMsu8rSWWIg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: H.264 patent licensing options)
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: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:18:31 -0000

Will do.  Thanks for the feedback :)

--Richard

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:54 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  Hi Richard,
>
> Please try to emphasize this fact (what is acceptable vs what is not) the
> next time you close a thread. I agree with your position, but I was not
> aware of what you meant until now.
>
> Thanks,
> Gili
>
>
> On 11/12/2014 3:51 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
>  Hi Gili,
>
>  Fair question.  Keep in mind that the context here is Sean's message of
> December 5, which was to confirm the consensus in the room at the IETF
> meeting.  He noted three objections that were discussed in the room,
> including one about IPR. He sought to confirm consensus on the list, and
> asked that anyone raise any other, additional issues by December 19.
>
>  Appropriate responses to his message would include: people who were in
> the room re-stating their positions, people who were not in the room
> stating positions, and people raising issues that were not in his issue
> list.
>
>  That said, it is important that all relevant facts be on the table.  So
> participants should feel free to point out direct, factual things about the
> options, technical or not.  However, any discussion or *analysis* of those
> facts, however, has to be off the table.  For example, "X open-source
> project is available under Y license" is OK, but "Y license doesn't allow Z
> use" is not.
>
>  Obviously, participants are welcome to come to their positions by
> whatever means they choose.  Participants may consider technical
> characteristics, IPR terms, legal issues, or anything else.  However, this
> working group is chartered to develop technical solutions, and the
> expertise on this list is technical.  So I am precluding discussion of
> non-technical matters in this forum.
>
>  Thanks,
> --Richard
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:39 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> I don't want to start a flamewar but I don't get the IETF's reasoning on
>> this matter.
>>
>> Is the IETF planning to pick one or more MTI codecs based purely on
>> technical merits?  Or are they taking other matters (such as licensing)
>> into consideration?
>>
>> If you are judging based purely on technical merits, why are we
>> entertaining this "compromise" proposal? I thought we had agreed long ago
>> that both codecs were more or less equivalent from a technical merit point
>> of view.
>>
>> If you are not judging purely based on technical merits, why are we not
>> allowed to debate matters that are part of the judging criteria?
>>
>> Gili
>>
>> On 11/12/2014 1:53 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>>
>>> Just to clarify: The above messages closing the thread were with my RAI
>>> AD hat on, so as a matter of IETF process.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
>