Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Nokia mincing

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

+1.

Every time I see someone voting YES for one option and NO for everything 
else (a pattern that keeps on repeating) I question whether they are 
genuinely looking for a compromise.

Gili

On 19/12/2013 2:32 AM, Mohammed Raad wrote:
> Well, many of those same people saying that they only want to maintain 
> one codec have been more than willing to keep on developing new 
> standardized codecs and to pile on profiles, which, in many practical 
> situations means different code bases.
>
> A compromise, by definition, is taking what one can get, which simply 
> has to be acceptable and may not match what one was aiming for.
>
> What members of this WG have been saying, and writing, is that they 
> want interoperability. OK, so that can be achieved with at least one 
> of the options in the straw poll that VP8 proponents have indicated is 
> acceptable. It would seem logical and reasonable to expect AVC 
> proponents to take up that option also. I started commenting when I 
> noticed that was not happening, which raised the question in my mind 
> as to whether or not there is an intention to achieve 
> interoperability, or whether there were still genuine 
> misunderstandings wrt the IPR situation.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mohammed
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     I think the biggest problem is that people only want to maintain code
>     for one codec. If you already have H.264 support implemented, you will
>     oppose every other codec, no matter how big the advantages.
>     Therefore, a compromise is not possible with such a position.
>
>     Silvia.
>
>
>     On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Mohammed Raad
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>     > Correct on changing the subject line, this really started as a
>     clarification
>     > question and then grew, sorry.
>     >
>     > What is relevant to the straw poll thread is that we should have
>     a correct
>     > summary of where the IPR situation really is.
>     >
>     > It has been pointed out that the MTI should satisfy options a)
>     or b) on the
>     > ietf declaration form. As matters stand AVC/h264 does not
>     satisfy that, this
>     > has been made very clear through the ISO process. On the other
>     hand, VP8 has
>     > so far withstood court challenges, as you point out - something
>     which AVC
>     > could not BTW - and the technology owning entities willing to
>     license VP8
>     > relevant technology under the required royalty free terms has grown
>     > significantly during the past year.
>     >
>     > It would seem very clear that the codec that is closer to the
>     royalty free
>     > ideal situation is VP8.
>     >
>     > As such, it is surprising to see AVC proponents opposing the
>     adoption of
>     > VP8, even as one of two MTI codecs - something that VP8
>     proponents appear to
>     > be saying is acceptable - based on IPR arguments.
>     >
>     > If members of this WG wish to move towards a compromise that
>     allows webrtc
>     > to fulfill the potential that it has then this is their
>     opportunity. I
>     > certainly encourage them to take this opportunity.
>     >
>     > Mohammed
>     >
>     >
>     > Please people, changing the subject for side discussions like
>     the Chairs
>     > requested isn't rocket science ...
>     >
>     >
>     > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:47:14PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>     >> My gosh.  Nokia has people at the IETF, and they made statements
>     >> and have not minced words.
>     >
>     > They also have people making statements in the courts, where they
>     > seem to be getting, well, thoroughly minced!
>     >
>     >
>     > The interesting question isn't Nokia's intention here, I don't think
>     > anyone seriously doubts what it is.  The interesting questions are
>     > twofold:
>     >
>     >  a) Do they even have the slimmest leg to stand on with their claims
>     >     against VP8?  There's so far no supporting evidence to say that
>     >     they do, and plenty stacking up against them.
>     >
>     >  b) Given their stubborn refusal to make any declaration about their
>     >     intentions or IPR for H.264 here, does anybody have even the
>     >     slightest idea what their terms are for licencing the Cisco
>     blob?
>     >
>     >
>     > Meritorious or meretricious, the devil is in such little details.
>     >
>     >   Ron
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > rtcweb mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > rtcweb mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>     >
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Mohammed Raad, PhD.
> Partner
> RAADTECH CONSULTING
> P.O. Box 113
> Warrawong
> NSW 2502 Australia
> Phone: [phone]
> Email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb