Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-05.txt> (Guidelines for the Codec Development Within the IETF) to Informational RFC

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Wed, 05 October 2011 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCF821F8C93; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.134
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.466, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tqGLf5uG9qZO; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F5921F8C92; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.64] (unverified [71.202.147.60]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 46274-1743317 for multiple; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:16:44 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:16:18 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAB21F52.31E32%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-05.txt> (Guidelines for the Codec Development Within the IETF) to Informational RFC
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiHo7Dz7ybcHcqy5NMhTZUPVT_i5=B3rG8Hf4jW52E8LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: 71.202.147.60
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP (71.202.147.60) was found in the spamhaus database. http://www.spamhaus.net
Cc: codec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-05.txt> (Guidelines for the Codec Development Within the IETF) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 05 Oct 2011 22:13:40 -0000

Phillip,
Please see inline. 

On 10.5.2011 13:25 , "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have some issues with the way that the section on IPR is written.
>While I agree with most of the statements there. I don't see my two
>biggest IPR concerns listed.
>
>1) Specific to this document, we already have unencumbered CODECs that
>permit encoding of audio and video with acceptable fidelity and
>adequate compression for 95% of all purposes. Thus it is essential
>that the IPR regime for any future CODEC strictly limits the cost of
>using that technique to some portion of the cost savings from
>reduction in bandwidth use.

I disagree for technical reasons that have already been pointed out by
others.  I would also suggest that something like AAC, according to your
theory, should have never happened (as it covers essentially the same
application space as MP3, with moderate gains in the quality/bitrate
tradeoff), but it a) was standardized--in the same body as MP3, and b) was
and is a commercial success, despite being quite expensive.

>2) The principal concern I have with IPR licensing in general is not
>the cost of licensing but the difficulty of licensing. I have on
>several occasions been in negotiations with an IPR holder who is
>completely unable to decide how much money they want or on what terms
>they are willing to offer their IPR.

The IETF is certainly not in the business of regulating how licensing
discussions are to be arranged :-)  (Never mind that they can be quite
frustrating, as, apparently, both of us know).

>3) Linked to that is the problem of uncertainty. A purported rights
>holder can only grant a license for the rights they hold, they cannot
>and will not provide a warranty with respect to any other rights.
>While due to the lingering effects of submarine patents it is
>impossible to know if any CODEC is completely unencumbered, it is a
>very safe bet that the audio codecs used for cinema sound in the mid
>1980s are now unencumbered. It is not possible to be confident that
>any new audio codec is unencumbered.

All what you write above is true.

>Taken in combination, I cannot imagine any reason to use any audio
>codec other than MP3 or AC2 (or some other similar legacy scheme) once
>we can be assured that the corresponding patents have expired.

Well, many folks actually do license, under sometimes expensive terms,
protected technology, and use them to their benefit.

>I
>really could not care less what fidelity or other benefits might be
>claimed for them. Bandwidth and storage are much cheaper than the
>financial benefits offered by the technology held by the rights
>holders.

That your position.  It's a position many of the opus proponents would
probably share, even if you were broadening the technical features to
include other alleged goodies of "opus".  However, it's not the only
reasonable position.  Depending on your business model, and the business
model of the rights holders, there are many situations where picking a
licensing, and paying for it, is to the advantage of a rights taker.

>
>The situation is very slightly different for video codecs, but not by
>a great deal.
>
>
>So the overall experience has been that it is like trying to negotiate
>the purchase of some fancy-schmancy kitchen cabinets from some guy who
>hasn't a clue about business but is desperate to make sure that they
>don't leave a penny on the table even if his dithering about is likely
>to cost him the business. Meanwhile you can get a perfectly
>serviceable set of cabinets from Home Depot and Lowes where they will
>give you price on the page ordering. In this case there is a free
>alternative in almost every application worth bothering about.

Your email ends here.  Now I'm at loss.

Is your position that
A) the section on IPR be modified with an explanation of the commercial
constraints you have described,
B) the section be modified to gate the issue of an RFC defining an IETF
codec on terms compatible with YOUR commercial constraints you have
described, or
C) something else?

If your choice is B), would you care describing how your request is
supported by the IETF's patent policy?

Stephan

>
>
>On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:12 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Wideband Audio Codec
>>WG
>> (codec) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Guidelines for the Codec Development Within the IETF'
>>  <draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-05.txt> as an Informational RFC
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-19. Exceptionally, comments may
>>be
>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>>   This document provides general guidelines for work on developing and
>>   specifying a codec within the IETF.  These guidelines cover the
>>   development process, evaluation, requirements conformance, and
>>   intellectual property issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-guidelines/
>>
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-guidelines/
>>
>>
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>_______________________________________________
>codec mailing list
>codec@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec