Re: [codec] [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00

Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com> Wed, 22 December 2010 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A023A6953; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:30:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.629
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.427, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9x4s-MUMAegl; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D5B3A68EA; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so2207675yxt.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:32:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:user-agent:date:subject:from :to:cc:message-id:thread-topic:thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type; bh=kM48DsyX88y7PK12iG2GmA7epaWKijnRwidB84Rfbd0=; b=PnPsq9Z2Mecz/c1PCDpEPDhMRhE/tCuY/2dj0qTY89FYhtjlhhTSzz8P6uJqWqk/IP e4KwKpXmlBBFzIg79FdoJBjoycP5EZ0VdYGT5dr/VMpCo0eSl0D7bso9povD6xSFCuQO JAg3K7KH4xgLjQPPRjocpxz5gChx3DXZaL4iI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type; b=ZF4nAhyigV7n8xJbmI23Z/mIlaDuGN8+cZS4hs/Z/CE6/uQrhpKigH60p2hAdfd72g oRkI33P846SfgoUkMdCfJn6qhm/2qded+YmWE/VC1BhaPGvB8l12zcepWcniVVYj7QtU c+ygai+TDdBFC4a9EsiiM307GIJDZE0S1ECXU=
Received: by 10.100.190.3 with SMTP id n3mr3741520anf.150.1292985154181; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:32:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.7] (cpe-76-184-225-135.tx.res.rr.com [76.184.225.135]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 35sm10475640ano.11.2010.12.21.18.32.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:32:33 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:32:28 -0600
From: Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
To: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com, peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com, harald@alvestrand.no, codec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C936BF5C.169CB%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
Thread-Index: AcuAy1RXtTh3Nt0jTE+h7SlrXOzekgdDJukAAN9ebfAACsQBig==
In-Reply-To: <DD8B10B86502AB488CB2D3DB4C546E3806DA99@008-AM1MPN1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3375808351_4771304"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:04:41 -0800
Cc: rtc-web@alvestrand.no, dispatch@ietf.org, ted.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [codec] [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 02:30:44 -0000

It is interesting, almost funny (or sad depending on the perspective) how
the reaction to a _God Forbid_ IP-free video codec is mirroring the
opposition to the Internet audio codec. That opposition proved eventually
futile and we have now a CODEC WG.
I hope the AD¹s will have now the same fortitude as was shown when the
Internet audio codec WG was formed.

I have taken the liberty to copy the CODEC WG and hope they can participate
now in the video codec discussion as well.
My apology for the double posting.

Thanks, Henry 


On 12/21/10 3:38 PM, "Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com" <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
wrote:

> Hi Peter, all,
>  
> About the video codec: Are there any arguments on why VP8 would not have IPR
> issues? It is available as an open source implementation, but that does not
> mean there are no IPR against it. My understanding is that the IPR situation
> wrt. VP8 is still unclear and thus risky. The other issue with VP8 is, as far
> as I know, the lack of a clear spec out of which independent interoperable
> implementations can be created.
>  
> So I don¹t at least buy the argument that we should choose VP8 as mandatory to
> implement video codec because of IPR reasons.
>  
> I¹m working on a separate review on Harald¹s drafts (thanks for putting them
> together) and will come back to the codec issue there in more detail, but just
> wanted to respond to Peter¹s point here.
>  
> Regards,
>                 Markus
>  
> 
> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of ext Peter Musgrave
> Sent: 17 December, 2010 13:48
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: rtc-web@alvestrand.no; dispatch@ietf.org; Ted Hardie
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
>  
> 
> I'd also like to echo Alan's thanks for these drafts.
> 
>  
> 
> The protocol doc is very clear. [If you read only one dispatch draft this
> Christmas, make it this one. ;-)  ]
> 
>  
> 
> One observation to the group. The mandatory to implement video CODEC is VP8
> (presumably since it does not have IPR issues - which some other choices would
> have). 
> 
>  
> 
> Regards, 
> 
>  
> 
> Peter Musgrave
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Nits
> 
> Introduction
> 
> s/veichle/vehicle/
> 
>  
> 
> Section 2 Para "Within each.."
> 
> s/implementaiton/implementation/
> 
>  
> 
> Section 4 Para1
> 
> "such as" (something missing here?)
> 
>  
> 
> Section 5 Para2
> 
> "There is no third mandatory to implement"
> 
> ? Was there a mention of a third before. Not sure why this statement is there.
> 
>  
>  
> 
> On 2010-11-10, at 6:34 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 
> This is the overview document for the IETF-related RTC-WEB work.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
>  
>