Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Thu, 14 November 2013 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 2B32711E80FA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:47:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Z1GI-+0dTmsj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:47:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA91911E8125 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:47:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id D54C6C94C1; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:47:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:47:06 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20131114204706.GC13468@verdi>
References: <5282A340.7010405@gondwanaland.com> <20131113165526.GA13468@verdi> <6EFABF3B-4D97-4B2E-B3B6-0618575B1B0F@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6EFABF3B-4D97-4B2E-B3B6-0618575B1B0F@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:47:17 -0000

Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>; wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:55 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>; wrote:
> 
> >  Both H.264 and VP8 deserve "SHOULD implement" status.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, could you say a bit more about what you see
> as the difference between MAY, SHOULD, and MUST in this context?

   I'd be happy to (though I don't intend the slightest departure from
word-for-word RFC2119).

   MAY is simply a warning label -- that the authors expect some folks
to do this.

   SHOULD means it's intended as an integral part of the standard, but
the authors recognize that some implementations may not comply. The
chief difference from MAY is that anyone can hassle the implementors
which don't comply, demanding their reasons and publicly ridiculing
any reasons which are weak.

   MUST means if you don't implement it, you're not compliant with
the standard. Presumably you could be sued for false advertising if
you claim to comply to the standard but don't satisfy all the MUSTs.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>;