Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Two comments you should feel entirely free to treat as nits: - The term "competitive" is used a couple of times. I get the gist but that might add more scope for people unhappy with the WG consensus to re-argue about performance measurements. (But maybe they will anyway.) - The BCP79 para says "verifiable" which sounds nice but might also leave open too much scope for argument if someone insists that the WG consensus is not based on verifiable reasons. Mostly, the BCP79 conclusions reached by participants are not verifiable, even if the facts presented to the WG that are taken into account are verifiable. I think it'd maybe be better to say something like "prefer algorithms or tools where there is rough consensus amongst participants that those will in fact be available without significant encumbrance on a royalty-free basis." _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
