I can live with any of these. Just trying to get to yes. -Ekr
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <[email protected]> wrote: > Comparable and competitive express the same goal with slightly different > connotations. Comparable sounds more neutral / objective. Neither express > “outperform” as Keith suggests. There was indeed BoF discussion around the > desire to “outperform”, but no consensus to require this in the charter, > hence “competitive”. > > I prefer “Has comparable performance”, just to avoid any > misinterpretation or connotation of “Is competitive”. But I don’t think > either language will really matter all that much. Concerns in other SDOs > are unlikely to be alleviated with any charter language. > > Mo > > On 5/13/15, 9:31 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > I honestly don't care about this, but how about "having competitive > performance" > > -Ekr > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:29 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I do not believe that we do mean the same. >> >> This got a little discussion in the BOF, but I see liitle point in >> developing a codec where the only selling point is a claimed royalty free, >> something that can never be guaranteed. >> >> Therefore I certainly would like to see the aim of development to be >> something that is in some aspect better, and thus competitive, rather than >> just the same, as in comparable. Maybe we can find another word, but I am >> unhappy with comparable. >> >> Keith >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: video-codec [mailto:[email protected]] On >> > Behalf Of Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) >> > Sent: 13 May 2015 13:21 >> > To: Spencer Dawkins >> > Cc: [email protected]; The IESG >> > Subject: Re: [video-codec] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on >> > charter-ietf-netvc-00-03: (with COMMENT) >> > >> > I support removing "competitive" to avoid any >> > misinterpretation. Since we mean "comparable", we should just >> > say so directly rather than parenthetically. >> > >> > Mo >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On May 13, 2015, at 1:38 AM, Spencer Dawkins >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for >> > charter-ietf-netvc-00-03: 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: >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ >> > >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > COMMENT: >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > I don't know if the cat is too far out of the bag for this to >> > matter, but >> > >> > >> > "1. Is competitive (in the sense of having comparable >> > performance) with current video codecs in widespread use." >> > >> > has already piqued the interest of our dear friends at >> > another SDO. Is it possible to pick a less interesting word >> > than "competitive" here and elsewhere in the charter? >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
