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

Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com> Sat, 21 December 2013 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <xiphmont@gmail.com>
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 7C4E31ADFF6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:44:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 OHklJ5bzhuRP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-x235.google.com (mail-ve0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010DC1ACCD9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f181.google.com with SMTP id oy12so2138606veb.26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:44:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xOhx6abEkNOdQZc54x8L0E3G7xksKyV7cW/xfl2BB0Q=; b=rKVCszRVk5Sa4fWU2ukaBopbPFPSTHYaaUJOtTBSJAS3foQs2a81COJTiT2otBzm9w sXV5Ri50gHKFogv0dyaK1HUq8qBXacFp7e3WG8u5UeGyvtiBrJNWFZr82108UBwr9aWL 8dSvQcHZlKc3wqIswt9cjaKiz96QL+rgQY/1SV1vjFsCTZvEwX4zRNupg7kM2PC7ChJs ST6xPM2ieX3kmcZO2vYH6zgD3k6pNcBCn/gfItSi9GX4P5ofSNfPajJ7yKg1jf8+QC1I up5AsM8fdjz+vMru6cWSFfz59l2PwCY3SjUNfZjRncVxbRUqrqpLA9hfQO3WZf3JAMGZ w1LA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.184.70 with SMTP id cj6mr1892427vcb.23.1387651444327; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.224.14 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:44:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMePSkbqq9J9Ky6m9XswuWyoCBJLGapMPTrsSFyeW=eHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP7VpsVy0sfZpGQ2Vj=NGnvNpSjRhFc+bSaDyCaLbTLkGUjRVA@mail.gmail.com> <CEDB11FC.3E281%stewe@stewe.org> <CACrD=+8dMmjYWwQxw=8f97KA7sYOUCd1QrEtQMvdFqDPk7Ts6A@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPnE1-Uqk+ST3tZ5O706=rN4wxBapBxM+R_npHD0uzjJg@mail.gmail.com> <CACrD=+_iLWGzNPMNqEjGzK9L3S1_tCsvCu52=NsFHXeuyGhJbA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMePSkbqq9J9Ky6m9XswuWyoCBJLGapMPTrsSFyeW=eHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:44:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CACrD=+9+X+2Aph6ij-i-3XsuofKXaQ1Cuz7A0EQWFndADgpvuw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:44:08 -0000

> In the context of an IETF WG, "determined by consensus" generally means that
> the WG made a determination. If the WG didn't make such a determination
> but some other group did, it would probably be appropriate to qualify the group
> that made the determination.

Then you honestly misunderstood me, and I apologize for apparently
calling you out.  The message I wrote was really a continuation of the
thoughts I'd not put in the previous message.  It was not directed at
you (though it _was_ directed, apparently badly).

Opus did indeed have several spurious IPR declarations against it,
marked willing to license FRAND.  For a codec intended from inception
to be RF, that would have been a death sentence (and abject failure in
the minds of most of the individuals who contributed) had the
declarations been believable.  Simply being 'better' was unlikely to
be sufficiently compelling.

Monty