On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 12/2/2013 8:08 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
We have NOT called for a vote. We have NOT even sent out an consensus
call to see if there is consensus to use an alternative process. We sent an
email to discuss that possibility. I really wish people would actually look
at what is going on.
Actually, the thread has been pretty good about focusing on what's being
done. What's being done is an effort to invent an IETF voting process,
exactly contrary to established IETF principles and practice.
The pressures towards voting are constant and reasonable. For the IETF,
they are also wrong.
Actually they are right, they just have the wrong process.
This is not a technical decision, if it was, the answer would be very easy
to decide, just run some tests.
The issue is a business decision and the question for browser and platform
providers is whether a proposed MTI CODEC is available to them on
acceptable terms. Here acceptable depends not on the state of patent law
but the state of patent gamesmanship and the cost of evaluating a proposal
for potential infringement liability, the cost of mounting a defense, the
risk of an adverse judgement, etc.
The people who decide such matters are not here at the table so argument is
superfluous. And simply asserting that a CODEC is MTI will not make it so,
it will only help interoperation if the stakeholders decide to recognize
the outcome.
Rather than having a vote for a particular CODEC, the only approach that
can arrive at a consensus is for the stakeholders to state which CODECs are
acceptable to them and define consensus as being a CODEC that is supported
by 90% or 95% or some overwhelming proportion of stakeholders by market
share.
That isn't IETF process either but it is the only approach that is going to
result in a decision that has buy in from all the necessary stakeholders.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/