Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Mon, 10 November 2014 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <suhasietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F282E1ACF9E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:06:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vzdQ1euZcDqj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BA131A89B0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id ey11so9204356pad.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:06:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2hZUT4weYq5otLCpBa7yTn299F7D9gvzeWqAQp8D+zc=; b=0w7S+VBpEJjdnI/XvO4ifrEsd5lec53Pcd90d7r/zEe+PguU/zrcrYbgYNQ7OvVy/0 ZmmYQ0UkPNL67LzkQRizprEAR4Ol0bqX2tQpsnyojEAE1PPsO7vf1FTjeq+RlZ18jACB gpjnk9mygGf15ABRiHxtgxMFf6/KDzovwKhqRhS2PC9JtMKtxvlWuDmGR4WHbI6lQQ0+ kF4kFHxejLpqCOYXUHgOJrz6INT2NvDkfc5gO/XDZpdfqrakUjgzx/grQoUSbtNM+VgF JnbummsQkFhUXbnZf30lKHofRRCQi4JtdJwe2KYYapnpdxvr/qfXJezuVQJ1exemIrXy V4Gw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.146.71 with SMTP id ta7mr36144647pab.16.1415660791329; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.60.201 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:06:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxt7ceeA0nVzQTGERkmg2wsNp7ZSxkmpxm5MkjqxT6kERw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxt7ceeA0nVzQTGERkmg2wsNp7ZSxkmpxm5MkjqxT6kERw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:06:31 -1000
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGQTQsn22uPVA981k90AjPM6KpUM1wmmo-xxehqmSB1miQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6da6ee96fa2805078936d4
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/1O7AlC0X8lOw2r6SeXVi4HLZm7o
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:06:39 -0000

+1 on this proposal . Hope IETF91  would be a decision making for this
pending item


Cheers
Suhas

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>; wrote:

> Even though I am not 100% happy with this proposal and that it probably
> needs a bit of language clean up, I do support this proposal.
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>
>>  It appears that we're running headlong into another in-person discussion
>> about the relative merits of H.264 and VP8 as MTI candidates again. Matthew
>> Kaufman has argued that this conversation is doomed to failure because no
>> major player has been willing to change their position. The players he
>> cited were Cisco, Google, and Mozilla, who have represented the three main
>> positions on this topic pretty effectively. Although we participate as
>> individuals in the IETF, I think it's fair to say that the last time we had
>> this conversation, the median positions of participants from those
>> companies were "H.264 or die", "VP8 or die", and "either one as long as
>> it's *only* one", respectively.
>>
>> However, even if nothing else has changed, I think one salient point may
>> have become quite important: we're all tired of this. Over two years ago,
>> in March of 2012 -- before I even had an particular interest in WebRTC
>> except as a user -- this had already become such a long-running acrimonious
>> debate that I was brought in as a neutral third party to try to mediate.
>> I'm weary of this argument; and, with the exception of a few aggressive
>> voices who seem to enjoy the battle more than the outcome, I'm hearing a
>> similar exhausted timbre in the messages of other participants (and the key
>> stakeholders in particular).
>>
>> So, I want to float a proposal that represents a compromise, to see if we
>> can finally close this issue. First, I want to start out by reiterating a
>> well-worn observation that the hallmark of a good compromise is that nobody
>> leaves happy, but everyone can force themselves to accept it. And I want to
>> be crystal clear: the solution I'm about to float just barely clears the
>> bar of what I think I can live with. This proposal is based on an
>> observation that the dominating issues in this conversation remain those of
>> licensing, not technology or even incumbency. I’ve discussed this
>> extensively with representatives of all three of the players I mention
>> above, and they are willing to sign on.
>>
>> This proposal is based on the definitions of "WebRTC User Agent", "WebRTC
>> device", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint" in section 2.2 of
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-12.txt. My proposal would be as follows:
>>
>>
>>    1. WebRTC User Agents MUST implement both VP8 and H.264.
>>
>>     2. WebRTC devices MUST implement both VP8 and H.264. If compelling
>>    evidence arises that one of the codecs is available for use on a
>>    royalty-free basis, such as all IPR declarations known for the codec being
>>    of (IETF) Royalty-Free or (ISO) type 1, the IETF will change this normative
>>    statement to indicate that only that codec is required. For absolute,
>>    crystal clarity, this provision is only applicable to WebRTC devices, and
>>    not to WebRTC User Agents.
>>
>>     3. WebRTC-compatible endpoints are free to implement any video
>>    codecs they see fit, if any (this follows logically from the definition of
>>    "WebRTC-compatible endpoint," and doesn't really need to be stated, but I
>>    want this proposal to be as explicit as possible).
>>
>>
>> This has the property of ensuring that all devices and user agents can
>> work with all devices and user agents. This has the property of giving no
>> one exactly what they want. And, unlike any other previous plans, this has
>> the property of coming to a decision while maintaining pressure on the only
>> parties who can make a change in the IPR landscape to do so.
>>
>> /a
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>