IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> Sat, 21 December 2013 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <maikmerten@googlemail.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 BE0101ADED5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:38:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 29UVKE1CMhv0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-f172.google.com (mail-ea0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8E81ADEC0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f172.google.com with SMTP id q10so1323134ead.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:38:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hiMKheoNUxxc0hlx5eMfycHHFkV23/QBewDmq/D7k9A=; b=hGtNrLUf4a7XMKriBb25oppfqT4RyGW7y6cY1rQDwawCVwnBbt4pMNyvuSQ3ujrH6K NbPPa+ygyTDkbgAls2BKyGY8Zh1PO+KwgirPQcMVMwmpOcWoQNfB6pbWR993wKPxLcsS dWbkV2oOGf7y1KvkpkZF9FmWIXO17ex/KGEbnQo/NB5b3KdwYHWxWhD4JTPkHxtQfCku GBjeZdh7oNywG6lpU88kx7kBPayAZFJ5dTYbm6RBnAcPFTvz5rAm0YIEqcXU5IAtaII5 5mVjNVnuX8Pawk8qwsPLOFeZtYVN1RyBTSEcgxNQQWU/m02hRcKOPc+zIEYfYJYavjfi D0oQ==
X-Received: by 10.14.107.3 with SMTP id n3mr3208379eeg.67.1387636697129; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:38:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.109] (port-92-201-113-232.dynamic.qsc.de. [92.201.113.232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a51sm28101543eeh.8.2013.12.21.06.38.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52B5A7D5.6060102@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 15:38:13 +0100
From: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
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> <52B40035.2010308@alvestrand.no> <0D649E40-454C-4945-B148-FD8AC6D49349@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D649E40-454C-4945-B148-FD8AC6D49349@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 14:38:56 -0000

Am 20.12.2013 18:17, schrieb David Singer:
> VP8 is formally *unlicensable* at the IETF.  Ignoring this does not increase credibility of your arguments.

Just asking to get a better understanding of the process:

If there was a single "will not license" declaration regarding H.264, no 
matter how flimsy the claim, then H.264 would be automatically "formally 
unlicensable" as well?

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.


Maik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email