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

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>