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

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 11 December 2014 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 66F2A1A0121 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:51:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 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] 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 sVUyQCf68eZS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (mail-vc0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EA721A007C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hq11so2950220vcb.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:51:13 -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=CgZjlAQuUamjrJQgcSbi0jROWeSsHp8QJ9kvFDqSoS4=; b=V/NZJlthq1/biYRiFhsJ71LzFw1A6JWOzZ0kPr1sLIpXuNS4ijjNBZVitTKuvu16vE gxnyNI4xBymLFTUJUTQWD/iGAPiA1/X8ugphvYI31VKi2YSmtmeI701gK4aYx5nUcmRI ixAMvKm55h80maIBGZfl289Uz9kxzeMEPuAB80TE8V8JMLbOO6R7rXRVFdreEQ0lltqX HWzu6EinS+Pgig/ezXDR3AFYwzMOfT2WA1eVtWuFeydkIptiLxdgdrIB2l1BDqWm+ck0 yacRzRQKpqmeIOJzv2W/0JZQT4Lt1AmK3Wax+NTTS0/26j8TNXMDb0JH0X3SX0BBxqfi LDew==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQklIsCUafQJHha3G/SpEeUxfSXrv/0IaJC+1YCKQA7LNyKmXh2Z05e2ygqLcmTPZQS0J1Y+
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.92.69 with SMTP id q5mr6383309vcm.35.1418334673322; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.139.9 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:51:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxuwgpwfNYH5UhRK3ai92EYULVP3S9fSS=YOEtBPxzzT7w@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> <CAD5OKxuwgpwfNYH5UhRK3ai92EYULVP3S9fSS=YOEtBPxzzT7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:51:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgRQbsfuO2XGokovTUC9CatbFt7q2YBCFOap8=e-FWaRvQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015375ba6058bb0509f7c609
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/cz9VML411PBBt1cYVhGbX3rttig
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 21:51:19 -0000

Yes.  It is a fact, about you -- namely, the fact that you intent to
implement.  As above, analysis of that position would be off the table.

--Richard

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>