Subject: [video-codec] Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:02:03 -0700

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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."

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:34:45 -0700

Hi Benoit,

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

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

> _______________________________________________
> video-codec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:38:40 -0400

> 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.

For what it's worth, I agree.

Barry