Subject: [video-codec] Martin Stiemerling's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:20:02 -0700

Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: 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 am supportive to the chartering effort, but I believe that the cross-WG
review part is expressed too weak in this text part:

"In completing its work, the working group will liaise with other
relevant IETF
working groups and SDOs, including PAYLOAD, RMCAT, RTCWEB, MMUSIC, and
other
IETF WGs that make use of or handle negotiation of codecs; W3C working
groups
including HTML, Device APIs and WebRTC; and ITU-T (Study group 16);
ISO/IEC
(JTC1/SC29 WG11); 3GPP (SA4); and JCT-VC."

My text proposal:

In completing its work, the working group will seek cross-WG review  with
other relevant IETF
working groups, including PAYLOAD, RMCAT, RTCWEB, MMUSIC, and other
IETF WGs that make use of or handle negotiation of codecs; and liaise
with other SDOs, such as 
W3C working groups including HTML, Device APIs and WebRTC; and ITU-T
(Study group 16); ISO/IEC
(JTC1/SC29 WG11); 3GPP (SA4); and JCT-VC.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please expand RF in this paragraph:
"The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable
reasons to
believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or tools where
there
is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with royalty liability
potential.
The codec specification will document why it believes that each part is
likely
to be RF, which will help adoption of the codec. This can include
references to
old prior art and/or patent research information.
"

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:59:18 -0700

Hi Martin,

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/

I see no problem with this since liaising with a working group is more or less equivalent to getting cross-WG review. I have made this change.

Alissa