Re: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof)

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>On 12/16/2013 01:50 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>> Of course if you really do want an IETF IPR disclosure under way, then 
>> submit a draft that makes both codecs mandatory and asks for it to be a 
>> WG item. The codec declarations will have to be made against that 
>> document. But do you really believe that will produce any surprise 
>> declarations.
>>
>> That draft WG document at the moment does not exist.
>
>Keith, it is completely unclear to me why such a draft would cause more
>disclosures to come forth, given that we have one draft proposing
>declaring H.264 CBP mandatory that caused no IPR disclosures, and
>another draft proposing declaring VP8 mandatory that, again, caused no
>IPR disclosures.

It looks to me as though the expectation is that once a document is made
an official Working Group draft then others than those contributing the
draft have to make disclosures, and since as far as I can tell the draft
to make VP8 mandatory is not an official Working Group draft, making it
one would then cause more disclosures to come forth, as you put it. That
expectation might not be justified but the interpretation of the comment
above seemed straightforward.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/