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

Richard Barnes <> Thu, 11 December 2014 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713921A871B for <>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:51:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hr_1Th6NArhN for <>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 497C51A016B for <>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id im6so2870938vcb.25 for <>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:51:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=PynNfLxuogkXU104Mt+ETsK06DuLeqXQARI9NXuByzo=; b=aDaJyGBI+CHP6u3EBRNfF/aB77RYxINAod5vHhnUipLwSI579nUdFSpI183ZVDgpTa QjJOhFtwOYxNfLfK03qJogs8t0H1qIrC208oRLjIg1NuIeLcCpKkEqe6aCJytSeAbxPY ukXxUHh7PnG3bHFqFv5ZZmTQDfR6FRNptzge06VZ5hMDX8U4Ugdj205d74ktyEr2ZNeF fbMUqYcdCQ7A2mOZsJGsKdeFmhA1GVryINtN1bYXPzXsGp+8ifwDg5fbiNi60nJl4NUk jEq4PtsdytUCWwUYo6a2sdnKY81FbredwIoP6Ld5M79B1TJ29pKVWvjOfD5QD8OMr01o L+cg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlsgjBtAYXSKC3r5Icm7irfT5FY2VHYzTW2h7fwjRGQit1MrUEHeys/PMxfYO43Ke1BvnE2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 7mr8809701vcm.56.1418331083456; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:51:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20141211183248.GE47023@verdi> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:51:23 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Richard Barnes <>
To: cowwoc <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3cb1a67569e0509f6f0e1"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: H.264 patent licensing options)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 20:51:35 -0000

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


On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:39 PM, cowwoc <> 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