Ballot for charter-ietf-netvc
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Thanks for sorting out my blocking concern. I still have my minor comment: << 5. A collection of test results, either from tests conducted by the working group or made publicly available elsewhere, characterizing the performance of the codec. This document shall be informational. >> I'm really happy that the deliverables are, in general, specified in terms of what will be delivered, and not how it will be laid out in how many documents of what sort. Thanks! Related to that: I strongly urge that we strike the last sentence in item 5. Actually, I prefer that we replace it with an explicit statement that the collection might live in the working group wiki (or github, or whatever), and might not be published as an RFC at all. But I'd be happy with just striking the reference to publishing a document.
As a sitting TSV AD, I applaud "It should include, but may not be limited to, the ability to support fast and flexible congestion control and rate adaptation, ..." Thanks to the group for going there. This seems uber important. I'm balloting Yes with heartburn, based on this text: "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." What I had assumed based on the BOF is that NETVC intends to use non-traditional techniques to (I'm quoting from the "DAALA coding tools and progress" slides at the BOF) "Replace major codec building blocks with fundamentally different technology "Be sufficiently different from existing approaches to avoid large swaths of patents" as DAALA has done - at least, I assumed that was the point of showing these slides at the BOF. Am I misunderstanding, or is NETVC back to using traditional approaches, where looking at old prior art matters more? I agree with Martin's initial Discuss, and I mention that to thank you for the change into "seek cross-area review". I do see that as stronger than "liase with".
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."
- 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. - 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."
Thank you for addressing my concerns. A nit: there is one "RF" left in this paragraph "In keeping with BCP 79, the WG [...] on an RF basis."