Subject: [video-codec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:39:58 -0700

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."