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, 04 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
- [rtcweb] FW: Liaison Statement to IETF (SC 29 N 1… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] FW: Liaison Statement to IETF (SC 29… Krasimir Kolarov
- Re: [rtcweb] Liaison Statement to IETF (SC 29 N 1… Cullen Jennings