Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2014-12-05 20:55 GMT+01:00 Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>:
> This is fundamentally incorrect.  The IETF writes voluntary standards.  A
> MUST in an IETF standard is not an instruction to a company; it is a
> description of the expected behaviour of an interoperable implementation.
> You are not required to implement the standard at all.  At most, it is a
> description of what someone who claimed compliance to the standard is
> expected to have done.

Let's imagine I want to build a new open-source browser from scratch
in my spare time. Basically (if I was smart enough) I could conform
with all the W3C specs... Really? can I safely include VP8 and H264
(existing libraries or my own implementation of both) into my
open-source browser and publish the project and its source code?

The "MUST implement VP8 and H264" is a break line in the W3C, meaning
that from now on just big vendors (those who can deal with licensing
stuff) can conform with the specifications. And that is no good at
all.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>