IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] External Review Team

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6B011E81C1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:43:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.54
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bCl6vdvXPaxv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:43:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-sa01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CBC11E8112 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:43:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.48]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id rA8IeAII003439 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:40:11 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.1.204]) by 008-AM1MMR1-014.mgdnok.nokia.com ([2002:4136:1e30::4136:1e30]) with mapi id 14.03.0136.001; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:40:10 +0000
From: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] External Review Team
Thread-Index: AQHO3K8czKhyTFdRgk6Qukv+TTIoBpobpqUQ
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 18:40:09 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A10C6A0@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <BLU169-W133A02FF94CE62595F7D46D93F20@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W133A02FF94CE62595F7D46D93F20@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Nokia Internal Use Only; Project=None;
x-titus-version: 3.5.9.3
x-headerinfofordlp: None
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7IvXcHqzlA8psn+eKtgKP5mXtpVsfI4l2NjmBVbicsXK9soVNFtNenHuyQBbhnJosOUHPwX24yYi4DetqNwQMMaWsQOenxcQEwV6qEV/GYSz5QKUHXTxdjcBKmqIIBpYA+QsykGxwsALVfGMSmWLZAsOEMqBsaNM7zkLrxdphL7zSmA1l5Blg979TbX+GhnGrcKmAo8YHh+MOszn34HoPXAPwSLv2dqEmcWGA7egHpiPo
x-originating-ip: [10.163.35.158]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A10C6A0008AM1MPN1041mg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] External Review Team
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 18:43:32 -0000

Hi,

Also the decision is largely a trade-off between various interests. Various stakeholder groups got mentioned yesterday: small vs. big companies, mobile apps vs. websites, open vs. closed source, companies invested in legacy equipment vs. those who are not, different browser vendors, and so on. What is the best outcome for each of these may be different and there is no right answer how these should be weighed. Plus the legal risk Bernard mentions below, which clouds this further, and keeps changing. We have learned quite a lot of new information between early March and now for instance, regarding both H.264 and VP8.

Markus

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Bernard Aboba
Sent: 08 November, 2013 20:19
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] External Review Team

Adam Roach stated:
"I'll make an even stronger statement: I would contend that any strong push against the use of an external review team amounts to a tacit admission by an individual that the arguments for their preferred position are insufficiently compelling."

[BA] If the core issues under consideration were technical, I'd agree with you.
Unfortunately, they aren't.  The core issue (as Jonathan ably stated) is the perceived legal risk.  Convening an external review team of IETF participants to evaluate those legal risks is unlikely to persuade the real audience for those recommendations - lawyers.

If the goal is to come up with a compelling legal analysis, the expert panel should probably be composed of recognized legal experts.  Good luck with recruiting such a panel to work pro-bono.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email