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

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Richard,

Is it fair to state things like due to licensing considerations, as we see
them, we will implement things X and Y in the following manner, and because
of this we support the proposed compromise?

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>