"...is to be developed as a putative open source, better than anything available at the time of release..."
Jon M. Kelley On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:56 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send video-codec mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of video-codec digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-netvc-00-03: (with > COMMENT) (Alissa Cooper) > 2. Re: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-netvc-00-03: (with > COMMENT) (Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> > To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email protected]> > Cc: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[email protected]>, IESG < > [email protected]> > Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 14:46:17 -0700 > Subject: Re: [video-codec] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on > charter-ietf-netvc-00-03: (with COMMENT) > I would say we go with “competitive (in the sense of having comparable or > better performance)” > > I don’t think choosing different words in this charter is going to have > much effect on liaison relationships one way or the other. > > Alissa > > On May 13, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Eric, > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I can live with any of these. >> > > As can I. I can live with no change, but another SDO has already sent us a > love note about the charter asking why we hate them because we want to > compete with them, quoting the word "competitive". > > Anything that makes liaison relationships settle down seems helpful. > > >> Just trying to get to yes. >> > > Speaking for me, you've got that. I balloted Yes without holding out for > the change :-) > > Spencer > > >> -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 >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[email protected]> > To: Alissa Cooper <[email protected]>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF < > [email protected]> > Cc: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, IESG <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 21:56:19 +0000 > Subject: Re: [video-codec] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on > charter-ietf-netvc-00-03: (with COMMENT) > I can live with this, or even no change. > > Mo > > On 5/13/15, 5:46 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would say we go with “competitive (in the sense of having comparable > or better performance)” > > I don’t think choosing different words in this charter is going to have > much effect on liaison relationships one way or the other. > > Alissa > > On May 13, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Eric, > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I can live with any of these. >> > > As can I. I can live with no change, but another SDO has already sent us > a love note about the charter asking why we hate them because we want to > compete with them, quoting the word "competitive". > > Anything that makes liaison relationships settle down seems helpful. > > >> Just trying to get to yes. >> > > Speaking for me, you've got that. I balloted Yes without holding out for > the change :-) > > Spencer > > >> -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 > >
_______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
