Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

[Ron <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,

I do need to say that I really appreciate the effort you've put into
trying to help guide this discussion, both previously and now.  You
speak an uncommon amount of good common sense.

It's not clear to me exactly how you expect this part to work though:

On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:08:25PM -1000, Adam Roach wrote:
> 2. WebRTC devices MUST implement both VP8 and H.264. If compelling
>    evidence arises that one of the codecs is available for use on a
>    royalty-free basis, such as all IPR declarations known for the codec
>    being of (IETF) Royalty-Free or (ISO) type 1, the IETF will change
>    this normative statement to indicate that only that codec is
>    required. For absolute, crystal clarity, this provision is only
>    applicable to WebRTC devices, and not to WebRTC User Agents.

What would constitute "compelling evidence" in this context?

Since the IETF doesn't take any position on the validity of IPR
declarations, I'm not seeing how the conditional clause here can
be anything but a no-op that would be essentially impossible to
trigger.

There are plenty of proposed standards which have IPR declarations
made against them, which pretty much everyone who has analysed them
in any detail agree are utterly bogus and inapplicable, but for
which the organisation which declared them refuses to withdraw.

What am I missing that would encourage different behaviour to that
in this case?

  Cheers,
  Ron