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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[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
>>
>>
>