Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 08 December 2014 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 A88201A876B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 08:00:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 E4Ka55HT5BLb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 08:00:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1441A90E9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 08:00:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC887C3659; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 17:00:31 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EtKhvUPftW_k; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 17:00:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:603b:7836:2531:29df] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:603b:7836:2531:29df]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0F2A7C3658; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 17:00:29 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5485CB1D.5040305@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 17:00:29 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <547511DB.5050100@nostrum.com> <54759A4C.6020806@gmail.com> <5476092D.4010406@nostrum.com> <15EF2452-2C2C-420B-B972-C37EACE57850@apple.com> <CAHp8n2m+KMnui30_fMrwM+81UX-RUJM2ktuiZuPpRSnC7dxqcA@mail.gmail.com> <20141204014218.5955730.38619.3157@blackberry.com> <CAHp8n2=KWuTsmruz3W-90eAsptSoMYLTUVtyx9pAwcZFGXSKCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CB477124-13AD-47EA-A607-8A81AFFA379E@apple.com> <CAHp8n2n1m6WRaBPNyKpowPEz_BK-SAMMFWTiB7d-eVL69w4rpQ@mail.gmail.com> <1F326DF9-79C2-4562-853B-240D934EA235@apple.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B28CDFF@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAD5OKxv+s_2qEGaYADi=-j-0Rn=pw_7Okd7Uv0qqKPnTyeXh+g@mail.gmail.com> <5480CEF2.4020204@mozilla.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B28CF6B@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <54816F91.9010108@alvestrand.no> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF359DEB@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF359DEB@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/j-GS7Ow-S66NKCRPeYbVOGc1ZNc
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
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: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:00:36 -0000

Den 05. des. 2014 21:37, skrev Gaelle Martin-Cocher:
> Harald, 
> 
> Would you mind clarifying if that VP8 WebM CCL agreement is up to date (copyright is 2010-2013)

I believe it is.

> and if it covers all the declarations that are listed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation ?
> 

To the limits of my understanding:

It covers the IPR covered by Google's declarations listed in section 2.1
and 2.2 of that draft.

It also covers the IPR described by the declarations covered by Note 1
of section 2.2 of that draft.

But there are more declarations listed in those sections.
So the answer to your question, read literally, is "no".