Subject: [rtcweb] Plan for discussion of MTI codec proposal

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:52:05 -1000

Sean Turner said:
"All, Based on the responses receive so far to our "The MTI Codec
Questions” mail, we are planning to discuss Adam Roach’s proposal instead
of the questions that we proposed. At the end of the discussion, we will
seek consensus on it. spt"

[BA] This is a major agenda change made a day before the meeting. Is one of
the consequences of the above to preclude discussion of technical and
licensing issues as originally proposed below?  For example, I believe that
there is new information worth discussing in both of the below categories
in the following documents:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation

>    We believe the technical discussion will fall into two
>    buckets:
>      - New or unresolved technical points.
>      - Licensing.  WRT licensing, the IETF tries not discuss
>        whether IPR is valid, but an IPR issue that can be used
>        as input to the decision making process is if enough
>        people say they can’t/won’t implement because of the IPR.