Hi Benoit, On Apr 23, 2015, at 4:02 AM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: Block > > 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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm supportive of this effort, but it requires one improvement first. > Like most IESG members, I spent some time on: > > 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. > > Then I realized this text, further down: > > The working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "In > general, IETF > working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for > technologies > with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." This > preference > cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an IPR > unencumbered codec. > > You should avoid these almost similar paragraphs and combine the text. These two paragraphs serve slightly different purposes. The first one cites BCP 79 as a means to explain how the WG may consider the IPR landscape in developing the codec. The second one then further articulates what BCP 79 says and its limitation in terms of the outcome of the WG. These are not quite the same thing. Given that the first paragraph resulted from consultation with Jorge and Scott as mentioned in the thread regarding Barry’s block, that the citation to BCP 79 there was an important addition, and that the second paragraph is taken directly from the CODEC charter, I’m hesitant to make more edits to any of this language. Also, is this comment really BLOCK-worthy for external review? Thanks, Alissa > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Suggestion: Do you want to have a reference to OPUS in the charter, > basically telling: "we want the same success, but for video this time." > > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
