IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Thu, 11 December 2014 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.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 5A7CB1A1B57 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:40:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 B77CDtaSxbX5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:40:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 100631A1A9A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:40:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x19so5591540ier.13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:40:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sPZI+32+ZAlWcxtEAYX9T5Gw79KM4hRNyjc+VOFlCzA=; b=a9e5lFYNmvEU4ewpLSx4wWekUXJQr9z9ndPInEkkYbR72KsyEMfOhu9hHrrmkZqqLG EVDxIeTRBoPVnoTy+l7LTBkaW0Bc6moEa1NMvcUyBPkcP5/8EJV8gCNBCjMP2Vg8749T Q3A/7LTUapK/oOhyJfeuHMzi2CR94On9gYbL6xUZdC3PXosnYykV8bTM1QksxPhgvffe 9SCUyPtRHnx52NoaYMriW/Tx+mal0uX9ZGlhYS8YwAFMGFjRPXUAZlkJZOIvXS9eaWZg wZE0neltftQbeM3pjKWV8JK5jQhbJk87JkRFH7DZ3EF4qYtlNUotJKm4huTR6FtICGCH 6o8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn5Ak435jMdv9zFdH6EHsN12Lh+qjn8D9WCjQCA6cDtb6HwieNZbvpr0lkI6o+7qH5NKzq4
X-Received: by 10.50.225.1 with SMTP id rg1mr652957igc.39.1418326815197; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:40:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b7sm182975igx.15.2014.12.11.11.40.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:40:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5489F2DE.8030602@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:39:10 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.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>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRcqHdVr0g28DMLQdpPnXeH6FwUVitQRBhHmGuAcmcMsA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/FrjAzMYCkHoq5g3Qtqrh6W06By0
Subject: [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 19:40:17 -0000

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.

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status