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

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 11 December 2014 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 1AA901A8033 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:02:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=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 STXG9bS-2jHd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A4491A1C06 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id r20so621638wiv.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:02:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=AqllShfHmJCS+I5TPE+cFYpNxnUvURJ0gyuBZziv1Tk=; b=SAWFoow56fbZ5ZU3/3Q48TU44xHw7/1AZwzHNKUE2uno1lPeZWpCteJT+7pHY7M5VC Ft3c7LaeWkn6ylMTFJZLwSjUV+WdVbf8BMCq83H41vq38sFYczhO7r0UvpsclYjEZgiW ZU3aCgW27dK2ImpdcAoudxX5UnkyXBSJV5Ozip4m81nM0WykqPlbojLtk2kMsU8SgqnX DbrpLTn6hDotSbWztIDI8UwRYxoc3wYwJYx/pZh+flMNSStIMEAhUQO1UgGeY5mIp/LY o9WeZyBVoc1Md1xcMM4uZR8mDMNkl677zfGq0pzFd3a7oPH+Lqiv+Fwpz9C9Ll2V7FP7 WVbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkIT7Z2oIrf3arz8UDQyHtMJYOhuZZU/dzM21QAo6w5YPR8W7LR7q3wBg9ei8W3ducZxBb2
X-Received: by 10.180.81.7 with SMTP id v7mr1481195wix.74.1418331729022; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:02:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com (mail-wg0-f46.google.com. [74.125.82.46]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gi5sm3091124wjd.26.2014.12.11.13.02.07 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x13so7592252wgg.33 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:02:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.76.7 with SMTP id g7mr1595250wiw.38.1418331727564; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.191.202 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:02:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgT8Avt5idjUutyqi1J1hMXpKDDN1RBW88JT_ertDqr1dA@mail.gmail.com>
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> <5489F2DE.8030602@bbs.darktech.org> <CAL02cgT8Avt5idjUutyqi1J1hMXpKDDN1RBW88JT_ertDqr1dA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:02:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxuwgpwfNYH5UhRK3ai92EYULVP3S9fSS=YOEtBPxzzT7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043893c7cb98c90509f716c0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/NNv0gRgIA3k7XxumRnq1nTekyUU
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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 21:02:13 -0000

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 <rlb@ipv.sx> 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 <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> 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
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>