On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/2/2013 8:08 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: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.
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.
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/