Re: [rtcweb] Liaison Statement to IETF (SC 29 N 13820)

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Mon, 04 November 2013 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FC321E808F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:11:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.819
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.819 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.825, BAYES_00=-2.599, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.605]
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 vlZbRmEMC06K for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:10:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AFB21E820F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.21.78.155] (unknown [128.107.239.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BDC1350A85; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:10:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_39DF267F-BCD0-4EAC-AE2A-6563F15154B4"
Message-Id: <07125D97-E244-4449-A135-D3B8C0C22D57@iii.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:13:32 -0800
References: <CE9CD627.A93D0%stewe@stewe.org>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CE9CD627.A93D0%stewe@stewe.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Liaison Statement to IETF (SC 29 N 13820)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 04 Nov 2013 22:11:03 -0000

Thank you for sending this. For folks that prefer PDF, I have converted the word file in the liaison to PDF and attached to this email. 

On Nov 4, 2013, at 5:52 AM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:

> Hi rtcweb and Jari,
> 
> Jari, please distribute further as you deem necessary, with or without my
> notes below.
> 
> The attached liaison statement, received from MPEG tonight, is addressed
> to the ³IETF² (which is why Jari is copied specifically), but I believe
> it¹s mostly if not exclusively rtcweb that is interested.  Note that
> MPEG¹s closing plenary was past Friday; this almost sets a record for
> turn-around time.
> 
> The liaison statement is short and concise, so I do not attempt to
> summarize it. 
> 
> To put things into perspective (with the caveat that I do not attend most
> technical meetings in MPEG, as I¹m busy with JCT-VC), allow me to fill in
> some context
> 
> IVC is a cleaned-up version of the MPEG-1 video compression technology,
> riding the expiration of many of the second generation video coding
> patents (MPEG-1 part 2 was ratified in 1993).  WebVC has many similarities
> with the Chinese AVS, and both are essentially stripped down versions of
> H.264 (baseline) with bug fixes and minor enhancements of known H.264
> shortcomings.  VCB is VP8 with an MPEG-style specification and, AFAIK and
> so far, compatible with what¹s out as VP8 in the wild.
> 
> WebVC is fairly well along the approval process.  Despite the ³good
> results² reported, few folks I talk to expect IVC to go anywhere anytime
> soon.  Some were expecting that VCB would enter ISO¹s approval process at
> this meeting (issue of a Committee Draft, CD), but that also didn¹t happen.
> 
> Many on this list are probably more familiar with the IETF¹s and W3C¹s
> patent policies than with MPEG¹s, and the additional constraints used in
> video coding in MPEG.  So here is a quick primer.  The common ITU/ISO/IEC
> patent policy and its associated guidelines require formal, binding IPR
> declarations with authorized signature once the spec is stable and its
> clear that the patented technology is included, which implies to most that
> declarations are expected only towards the end of the approval process.
> However, contributors in all three aforementioned projects (though not in
> most other MPEG subgroups) are expected make non-binding written
> statements in their contributions, similar to what happened in JVT.  There
> is also an oral call for IPR at the begin of any MPEG meeting, but that is
> boilerplate and the reply is almost always silence.
> 
> All three technologies are developed in a relatively small sub-group (a
> few dozen people at most) while the majority of video coding experts (the
> record was around 350, IIRC) sit in the group known as JCT-VC and work on
> H.265.  It is entirely possibly that ³RAND" or even ³unavailable² IPR
> declarations will be received for all three standards under development
> towards the end of the process, without an early warning by non-binding
> written or oral statements in the subgroup.  Those declarations would
> AFAIK still be timely, because a) the patent policy guidelines discourage
> written IPR declarations to the ISO secretariat before the spec is stable
> (something many people associate with the DIS state), b) many companies
> interested in video coding do not follow those three projects in detail,
> perhaps because they focus on H.265, and c) once the projects are in the
> final stages of the approval process, companies may wake up because,
> arguably, only then the declaration requirements come into play.  Note
> also that, unlike W3C, ISO does not have a formal process to deal with
> situations where an unfavorable IPR declaration has been received.  The
> policy only sets the requirement that the approved standard does not
> include provisions dependent on the unavailable patent.
> 
> The common ITU/ISO/IEC patent policy can be found here:
> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ipr/Pages/policy.aspx
> The guidelines are here:
> http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/04/04/T04040000010003PDFE.pdf
> (I¹m using the ITU web site as I know where to find things; I¹m sure you
> can find identical docs on the ISO site somewhere.)
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Stephan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11.4.2013, 00:48 , "WATANABE Shinji" <watanabe@itscj.ipsj.or.jp> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Sir or Madam,
>> 
>> In accordance with Resolutions taken
>> at the 106th SC 29/WG 11 meeting,
>> 2013-10-28/11-01, Geneva, Switzerland,
>> I am pleased to send attached Liaison statement.
>> 
>> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>> Thank you for your cooperation.
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Shinji Watanabe
>> 
>> -----
>> WATANABE Shinji (Mr.)
>> Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29
>> IPSJ/ITSCJ
>> 308-3 Kikai-Shinko-Kaikan Bldg.
>> 3-5-8 Shiba-koen, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0011 Japan
>> Tel: +81-3-3431-2808 Fax: +81-3-3431-6493
>> Mail: watanabe@itscj.ipsj.or.jp
> 
> <29n13820.zip>_______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb