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

Andrew Allen <> Tue, 11 November 2014 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844D51A89E9 for <>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 06:16:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h4T7s-_gD4hC for <>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 06:16:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3C61A1A9F for <>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 06:16:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 11 Nov 2014 09:16:19 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::28c6:fa1c:91c6:2e23]) by ([fe80::b815:71ef:9f8f:e07c%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:16:18 -0500
From: Andrew Allen <>
To: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
Thread-Index: AQHP/ItBvCDjc5Yj2EadELDNEhEwy5xZkIUAgAEHJ4CAAONbRQ==
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:16:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:16:28 -0000


"In terms of what would constitute "compelling evidence", that's going to 
have to be something that the working group (or some successor group, 
depending on timing) comes to consensus around"

If this compromise was to move forward I think any "compelling evidence", is likely to be many years down the road (things will likely need to play out in the courts first etc) which means that the RTCweb group likely doesn't exist anymore or is by then a rump group that doesn't have the broad industry participation that we have now.

Would we really go through the process to constitute a new WG just in order to debate whether there is "compelling evidence"?

I certainly would have a big concern if a much smaller group like IESG or a rump remnants of RTCweb were in the end to make such a determination without a full long (months) high profiled public discussion. Also a BoF would not in my view be appropriate to make this determination either.

So if we go this approach aren't we effectively mandating both codecs for RTCweb 1.0 with the possibility that in any future RTCweb 2.0 we might revisit that decision?

We need to be cast iron now about the process for revisiting this if this goes forward and also with some guidance as to what developments are appropriate to trigger revisiting it, as we can't have someone just propose at every IETF to reopen this discussion until they get the decision they want.


----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Roach []
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 02:42 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Ron <>rg>; <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal


You are correct in that the IETF doesn't take a position on the validity 
of IPR declarations, and I'd like to thank you for bringing the topic up 
so that I could clarify the proposal. Rather than evaluating the 
*validity* of declarations, we would be evaluating the licensing 
statements associated with those declarations (where applicable).

In terms of what would constitute "compelling evidence", that's going to 
have to be something that the working group (or some successor group, 
depending on timing) comes to consensus around. I believe that examples 
of such situations would include things like "MPEG-LA announces 
non-discriminatory, royalty-free H.264 licensing for WebRTC" or "ISO 
publishes VP8 specification with only Type-1 IPR declarations".

With regards to bad actors' impact on the process, I fear this is an 
unfortunate consequence of international IPR law as it is currently 
defined that we are not in a position to fix. The best we can hope for 
is that the associated parties recognize the goodwill implications of 
standing in the way of progress, and the potential implications of 
developing bad blood between their company and the rest of the standards 

It's not awesome, but it's better than anything else that I've seen 
proposed so far.


On 11/9/14 18:00, Ron wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> I do need to say that I really appreciate the effort you've put into
> trying to help guide this discussion, both previously and now.  You
> speak an uncommon amount of good common sense.
> It's not clear to me exactly how you expect this part to work though:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:08:25PM -1000, Adam Roach wrote:
>> 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.
> What would constitute "compelling evidence" in this context?
> Since the IETF doesn't take any position on the validity of IPR
> declarations, I'm not seeing how the conditional clause here can
> be anything but a no-op that would be essentially impossible to
> trigger.
> There are plenty of proposed standards which have IPR declarations
> made against them, which pretty much everyone who has analysed them
> in any detail agree are utterly bogus and inapplicable, but for
> which the organisation which declared them refuses to withdraw.
> What am I missing that would encourage different behaviour to that
> in this case?
>    Cheers,
>    Ron
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list

rtcweb mailing list