Re: [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: H.264 patent licensing options)

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Thu, 11 December 2014 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 815C51A0101 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:55:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 GwUV6hDvoayN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:55:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D5271A0032 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:55:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id tp5so5768923ieb.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:55:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=AXZYe63m1AOlV2otFj00o2m3g7jHoTitr27+aNPVUq0=; b=fMwPVl+6dMaPSdjfhvFsyv8DXVk9N4WnbfoG77RmhlFnraiKeEKSa/X3oLIKEh+PPD n0MgjvTzvkp0JaIWUbJU+Mn7MSFuwajPLDYrzpVOkhzwtybQipfLcxSK8YyAa1iEQ8qf hBv9vxPMRLrEMujBg4E/PorZ/1sO0onB1NoBjiBBpBsPdBMUtTLnjRsJasQkmZsKJWkB 45wQZRZ4PzmAYq8LYVBr9CLYe7WEAX+DyXfbEC4qsrn1bzmPSFr8wGUNBObqICcNe+Es Tfo3QCkjkFikK/jpHetbGRlDBXTdpy4FlL/hcfeQv8Aed4QymPDttSpc5x4AywolqTVb 1Qfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnN80kGyGBctsB1HxSpdhK+LCvdvo7kFbYnhvpgZYQ/f1Gf0UL3hAtCuzeyCbPHcDnVAvqU
X-Received: by 10.42.194.17 with SMTP id dw17mr13515803icb.4.1418334924474; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:55:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qc7sm370795igb.5.2014.12.11.13.55.23 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <548A1288.7040001@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:54:16 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AC05@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <63BC3D6D-03A1-41C2-B92D-C8DD57DC51DB@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998ADF1@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <87d27r9o0a.fsf_-_@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com> <87iohisl7h.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CAD5OKxs-L+1J7csFtTMThn+EF10kkAe_4-kpZ8jj59qmBV=CGQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141211183248.GE47023@verdi> <CAL02cgQzkE3j-s2fdho9GBgTb4-bgCHqoMR3L0RP5QkRoqqZSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgRcqHdVr0g28DMLQdpPnXeH6FwUVitQRBhHmGuAcmcMsA@mail.gmail.com> <5489F2DE.8030602@bbs.darktech.org> <CAL02cgT8Avt5idjUutyqi1J1hMXpKDDN1RBW88JT_ertDqr1dA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgT8Avt5idjUutyqi1J1hMXpKDDN1RBW88JT_ertDqr1dA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070903050407030103060300"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/w0DAy0claM2x6Sg4jBiV2OvYinQ
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: H.264 patent licensing options)
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: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:55:27 -0000

Hi Richard,

Please try to emphasize this fact (what is acceptable vs what is not) 
the next time you close a thread. I agree with your position, but I was 
not aware of what you meant until now.

Thanks,
Gili

On 11/12/2014 3:51 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Hi Gili,
>
> Fair question.  Keep in mind that the context here is Sean's message 
> of December 5, which was to confirm the consensus in the room at the 
> IETF meeting.  He noted three objections that were discussed in the 
> room, including one about IPR. He sought to confirm consensus on the 
> list, and asked that anyone raise any other, additional issues by 
> December 19.
>
> Appropriate responses to his message would include: people who were in 
> the room re-stating their positions, people who were not in the room 
> stating positions, and people raising issues that were not in his 
> issue list.
>
> That said, it is important that all relevant facts be on the table.  
> So participants should feel free to point out direct, factual things 
> about the options, technical or not. However, any discussion or 
> *analysis* of those facts, however, has to be off the table.  For 
> example, "X open-source project is available under Y license" is OK, 
> but "Y license doesn't allow Z use" is not.
>
> Obviously, participants are welcome to come to their positions by 
> whatever means they choose.  Participants may consider technical 
> characteristics, IPR terms, legal issues, or anything else.  However, 
> this working group is chartered to develop technical solutions, and 
> the expertise on this list is technical.  So I am precluding 
> discussion of non-technical matters in this forum.
>
> Thanks,
> --Richard
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:39 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org 
> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
>
>     Richard,
>
>     I don't want to start a flamewar but I don't get the IETF's
>     reasoning on this matter.
>
>     Is the IETF planning to pick one or more MTI codecs based purely
>     on technical merits?  Or are they taking other matters (such as
>     licensing) into consideration?
>
>     If you are judging based purely on technical merits, why are we
>     entertaining this "compromise" proposal? I thought we had agreed
>     long ago that both codecs were more or less equivalent from a
>     technical merit point of view.
>
>     If you are not judging purely based on technical merits, why are
>     we not allowed to debate matters that are part of the judging
>     criteria?
>
>     Gili
>
>     On 11/12/2014 1:53 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
>         Just to clarify: The above messages closing the thread were
>         with my RAI AD hat on, so as a matter of IETF process.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>