I made these changes, which now appear in charter-ietf-netvc-00-01. Alissa On Apr 21, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/21/15 09:47, Ben Campbell wrote: >> On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:35, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> Hi Barry, all, >>> >>> I’ve had a conversation with Jorge and Scott Bradner and have come up with >>> the edits below as a result. Would these address your concerns? >>> >>> OLD >>> The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable >>> reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or >>> tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with >>> royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why >>> it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help adoption >>> of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or patent >>> research information. >>> >>> NEW >>> In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there >>> are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis. In >>> developing the codec specification, the WG may consider information >>> concerning old prior art or the results of research indicating royalty-free >>> availability of particular techniques. >>> >>> Delete this sentence since WGs generally accept input from external parties >>> all the time: >>> The WG will accept and consider in its decision process input received >>> from external parties concerning IPR risk associated with proposed >>> algorithms. >>> >>> Everything else would remain the same. The above edits don’t change the >>> kinds of things WG may want to do to help produce a codec that many parties >>> can believe to be RF, but they stay closer to the existing BCP 79 language >>> that we usually rely on. >>> >>> Alissa >> >> I like Alissa's proposed change. > > I do also. > > /a
_______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
