IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Sat, 21 December 2013 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
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 A74E61ADFDF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:00:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 t6VWsps7n1OK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22f.google.com (mail-oa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA0C1ADFD5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id k1so4224846oag.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:00:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=H0/9nW/obUKCtLIYWJwB4SR/yfQzKHjrwF0VKt5dtSA=; b=hgxP3h6v7kbTfe8TyDzsc1AFM1U+PoxyzEPP+K2ECVxyVmVKmhdSJzOkfHUXBXf7EM JjufgcqSldODrHVpTUJB5ScZHE1T3mhDmOg/rKm7P6GQ778jOzlIxW5kWEzCzmRSPNaQ 4ZXD+Kc/XMRJQHFvfLMFLzwKu63FPOr8bOka+jjPR9BJUO2W0kE2587MRSVllXAXJn5x hV5+XMRLWAnyLiFF7ZhslOs72pCJESXCPbFg8bhxIE1bX9GTkFo6dV6WK/y5T8wYeR4q 2a5j1yvQ37uhSz+orAaiBp4ddiQQ9mqBA+zr/BjpTUOKWw7nseb4b4qmvOttvKtCC+Et 1xqg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.177.66 with SMTP id co2mr4136oec.85.1387648832595; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.68.106 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.68.106 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:00:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CEDB11FC.3E281%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <CAP7VpsVy0sfZpGQ2Vj=NGnvNpSjRhFc+bSaDyCaLbTLkGUjRVA@mail.gmail.com> <CEDB11FC.3E281%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 05:00:32 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2k-sMt9JqAiSmM6jsueth0VfPVJmcYpFh9g6uPPiwjf3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd6b03abd6c3304ee0f2ba7"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)
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: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:00:36 -0000

On 22 Dec 2013 04:49, "Stephan Wenger" <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/21/13, 7:41 AM, "Jack Moffitt" <jack@metajack.im> wrote:
>
> >> This sounds like a dangerous loophole to let any party block basically
> >> anything and I hope there are provisions in place to mitigate such
> >> scenarios.
>
> In the IETF, there is no automatic blocking of a standard proposal due to
> a ³not willing to license² declaration.  In fact, the IETF does not
> require any form of licensing, and there exists RFCs which had at some
> time in their history ³not willing to license² declarations against them.
> This is in contrast to organizations like W3C, ISO, or ITU, where there is
> a minimum requirement for licensing terms.
>
> >
> >Opus had several of these.
>
> Nonsense.  Really, people, try to do a minimum of homework before
> commenting.
>
> Opus has against it a number of declarations indicating RAND terms (in
> addition to a few with other royalty free terms).  That¹s a whole world
> different from ³unwilling to license².
>
>
> > It is still MTI for WebRTC because the
> >group was convinced the claims are spurious.
>
> The group, as a whole made the decision to include Opus as MTI.  The
> reasons for that decision is that there was rough consensus in the group.
> That¹s it.  The group did not determine that claims are ³spurious².  The
> IETF and its working groups do not take position on validity or
> infringement, nor should they.  I, for one, accepted Opus as MTI not
> because I think those claims are ³spurious², but because I knew there is a
> fallback, namely G.711.  Others may have other motivations.

How did this work?
I thought the MTI is the fallback codec.
Are you saying that Opus & G.711 are both MTI?

/confused

> >As far as I know there is
> >no formal way to respond to such claims or get them removed. Each
> >member must decide for themselves whether the claim is valid or not.
>
>  That much is true, except that the IETF does not have a membership
> concept.
>
> >
> >jack.
> >_______________________________________________
> >rtcweb mailing list
> >rtcweb@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email