Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net> Wed, 14 December 2011 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
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 627451F0C52 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:30:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_VISITOURSITE=2, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6]
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 eQsuAw3D+k1B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 37FA41F0C4F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [66.94.237.197] by nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Dec 2011 18:30:18 -0000
Received: from [66.94.237.107] by tm8.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Dec 2011 18:30:18 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1012.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Dec 2011 18:30:18 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 103587.66627.bm@omp1012.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 26496 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2011 18:30:17 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=nGG90FSpEFYIw91oZR0am2QcxcxvgmG25XvNPIzox77LQR3fKkc08AkZqnmSVHKklpfCTK1qJrsKDlIrZBOsPKOYkjtbwUqDrHU5JiZQB7LImhhRpyWA6cY7H9BZ2o/UDWmiUXyF3SFPYwMfOkSxwotoHmzD/LWB7OuhB5wWej4= ;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1323887417; bh=PFbkcla8EDrvVXUhalk7W/+GNUFvhoqSEomrGRnQ6b0=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=xYf7K764S4BmkFVj7w3KWhV6GVlNp7D0k/3Jzr66Zcjt+i2d0IdYsA5aZyikcUepONvLiASBtB387ZYt4FDF/B1XqC70qSKFuSNux3sG16TtamCHaYabX+X5p/37WNdtGdOk1nJI2n76bWxIRIOt3fKkcX6uhN4JpUeEJGTIvr0=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: a.6fhdYVM1m8LgO7naKbZvFSjd8mBge8on5xsQWrXN_8D6I kjuKMpg8IjHu_zX0Si..2SufiQSOHRbpZgqZXJCzu.Nj3YSOcux3leCNDnf1 bQ8qsWsWmcB1FWtPJt6kL2h0DtrJHpuKUteYVtvpu9dbZ850obcV6q10d.OS WO3lUeIjQ8iounY3wkPbpigsPIOGsVOW.92T1ghYaxybUioIYQjUi_GFGMP2 rUrukKuyqLCT3MtQkNA4iVxCLRgpmx6R5Z90ThJw_gy3TM1_YfBuNTSLm5MH bxHHKaoo4xMjtNduStRVwa3I43KwWxcK4REUhZNcQ41f5cdH6qbY_Jf07sTs mt1yn6C_qpRcHtwliqJoUVzPpE8uARNNNaF7rfxYlZkdI6d2aDj4fR934sMW SJ_arJs_0VgVnJbc718GUAn68kif9PNDC2yiKH5rHc6vjgfbZfiQahHQrhDy JWInGHjvnkuII7o7lyfrO96BHZXV8CrOi7QAz2vtdoLizKkw6bizPcLi826h hA1wezxMUxXlzrPo8xxS9cqfJkeCEO35.YVx4dZNRnUYDBXgMAuCeLnNfu33 CcMTL8jv87Jqxe2BAT4FlaqyIMTOq8X7vmAWVuvgQTLbfEH1bc1shakqS59s 44pf_.eQrmumQEGEFCSGIZgJ2iew2EK1HeYvBR2NmDvCqkdh70qhgKITL774 KkMEaRtz423u3HNpge80a7tBnjZgCKYs1KzfJ.PYx5bpIyvpuFh68znicOF_ xDNaeL3nO15__rv44Jim7BMn36HZL0GXzE2siiiIk_T5Fsq9Kq26mNTIrzby wyGPuegH0VKGRFACm8se_jIA5zXT4k1F3yy9ptWr2CcnZT_s1E29yS6KSCrO .nzXAcEJL0HIjXoWu4KEC6pRTOe4p9Df4CM0WG9_ycJmjw.bd2kRXCC93oIA 8gY3w.r9mGDfSGsSeQkA8yWS_XMPV6nRPCmTvxlPW10Z2JBvLoKx6VNOVlpL aGXpsMolxckxlfgp_eeqsJ_dBV1VCkCoExFHH8q54Fl0tqGV_ibmfd_jHj.a DIRTbcRBhr7K3Rv9k_xA581EEmtvO6rfBbc490a46OpR_HlwkZ0.bMTvUsHS R1pFkYFLoTlf0D0sM8DndsPlvOjgU9StXwXt5tqQz.BvI_WU1Am89RoanpHq KYKqeFRJhU0hoI5c5I6_L6.hTvKXRE9BmxNMN_xguNHRz.EPHj1scpdQTINf ZzcpBJc5y89_PIzs3JCSg.Lc7mi3oyQ--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xflwSnaswBCuS46GvTyhPI4RUJpgPG5UXouB5Vxqo4t9fsHeH0I-
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (rob.glidden@68.124.176.83 with plain) by smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Dec 2011 10:30:16 -0800 PST
Message-ID: <4EE8EB23.40002@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:29:55 -0800
From: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
References: <4EE7B127.2060308@sbcglobal.net> <20111214105958.70ffd918@lminiero-acer>
In-Reply-To: <20111214105958.70ffd918@lminiero-acer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, Cary.Bran@plantronics.com
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
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: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:30:25 -0000

Lorenzo:

I agree, royalty-free sub-uses are problematic,  giving with one hand 
while taking from another.

Only way to know is to review specifics, which is why I am proposing to 
replace the phrase you quote with a more consensus-building wording 
"reviewable substantiation of its royalty-free status".

Rob

On 12/14/2011 1:59 AM, Lorenzo Miniero wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I'm not at all an expert in this debate so I'm not sure what "royalty
> free basis for use in browsers" means: does this mean you would be
> allowed, royalty free, to decode/encode H.264 baseline streams if your
> encoder/decoder is the browser itself? Wouldn't this only work if such
> a stream would only flow between two browsers untouched, that is, no
> content adaptation/transcoding/overlays/mixing on the server side if
> needed? Service and Content providers would still need a licence if I
> got it correctly, or am I missing something?
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
> Il giorno Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:10:15 -0800
> Rob Glidden<rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>  ha scritto:
>
>> Cary:
>>
>> I have not seen a specific follow up text, but video codec
>> requirements section appears overtaken by events and should be
>> changed.
>>
>> Here is proposed text that will hopefully reflect consensus spirit:
>>
>> ...
>> 3.2. Video Codec Requirements
>> If the MPEG-LA issues an intent to offer H.264 baseline profile on a
>> royalty free basis for use in browsers before March 15, 2012, then
>> the REQUIRED video codecs will be H.264 baseline. If this does not
>> happen by that the date, then the REQUIRED video codec will be VP8
>> [I-D.webm].
>>
>> The REQUIRED video codec will be a royalty-free codec which has been
>> specified by a recognized standards process such as MPEG or other
>> due-process standards group and provide reviewable substantiation of
>> its royalty-free status.
>> ...
>>
>> For background, see:
>>
>> MPEG news: a report from the 98th meeting, Geneva, Switzerland
>> <http://multimediacommunication.blogspot.com/2011/12/mpeg-news-report-from-98th-meeting.html>
>> ISO/IEC MPEG to select from two options for royalty-free video
>> <http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/ISO-IEC-MPEG-to-select-from-two-options-for-royalty-free-video-1392734.html>
>>
>> Royalty-Free MPEG Video Proposals Announced
>> <http://slashdot.org/submission/1875776/royalty-free-mpeg-video-proposals-announced>
>> MPEG Plus or Patent Pool Lite? MPEG Mulls Royalty-Free Proposals
>> <http://www.robglidden.com/2011/12/mpeg-plus-or-patent-pool-lite-mpeg-mulls-royalty-free-proposals/>
>> Half of MPEG-2 Patents Expire in 2012
>> <http://www.robglidden.com/2011/12/half-of-mpeg-2-patents-expire-in-2012/>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>    Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>    * /From/: "Bran, Cary"<Cary.Bran at plantronics.com
>>      <mailto:Cary.Bran@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
>>    * /To/: Stephan Wenger<stewe at stewe.org
>> <mailto:stewe@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
>>    * /Cc/: "rtcweb at ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>"<rtcweb
>> at ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
>>    * /Date/: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 22:00:26 +0000
>>    * /References/:<E37C139C5CB78244A781E9E7B721527B5485F6 at
>>      USSCMB03.plt.plantronics.com
>>      <mailto:E37C139C5CB78244A781E9E7B721527B5485F6@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
>>      <CAD841DD.330F9%stewe at stewe.org
>>      <mailto:CAD841DD.330F9%25stewe@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
>>    * /List-id/: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group
>>      list<rtcweb.ietf.org>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> After further review, I think I get your point, my apologies if I
>> caused any confusion.
>>
>> What I meant to say was that I believe we have captured areas where
>> we have consensus in the draft.  Obviously at this time there is no
>> consensus as to which audio/video codecs will be mandatory to
>> implement yet.     To be clear here, in the draft we put in a
>> proposal for a mandatory to implement codec and we should have
>> qualified it as an open issue, where we have no consensus.
>>
>> Stephan, if you or anyone else, has a proposal as to what to add to
>> the list, we would be more than happy to add it to the document and
>> correctly label the areas where we have no consensus in an attempt to
>> facilitate the discussion.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Cary
>>
>> *From:*Bran, Cary
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2011 2:02 PM
>> *To:* 'Stephan Wenger'
>> *Cc:* rtcweb at ietf.org
>> *Subject:* RE: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
>>
>> Good points Stephan.
>>
>> I agree that more discussion is needed and all I am proposing here is
>> a document to capture the groups collective thinking.  I will defer
>> to the chairs to decide on timing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Cary
>>
>> *From:*Stephan Wenger [mailto:stewe at stewe.org]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:28 PM
>> *To:* Bran, Cary; rtcweb at ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
>>
>> Hi Cary, WG,
>>
>> Cary, how did you come to your conclusion that the WG has achieved
>> consensus on a subject like this:
>>
>>      If the MPEG-LA issues an intent to offer H.264 baseline profile
>> on a
>>
>>      royalty free basis for use in browsers before March 15, 2012, then
>>
>>      the REQUIRED video codecs will be H.264 baseline.  If this does
>> not
>>
>>      happen by that the date, then the REQUIRED video codec will be VP8
>>
>>      [I-D.webm].
>>
>> Or this
>>
>>      WebRTC clients are REQUIRED to implement the following audio
>> codecs.
>>
>>
>>
>>       [...]
>>
>>
>>
>>      o  Opus [draft-ietf-codec-opus]
>>
>> I may have missed it in the flood of emails on this reflector, but I
>> do not recall having seen any discussion whatsoever towards a
>> decision between the two video codecs mentioned, let alone a decision
>> made on commercial constraints and an attached timeline.  Please note
>> that I could most likely agree to the video codec issues as drafted,
>> with the exception of the timeline, which is IMO overly and
>> unnecessarily ambitious.
>>
>> Similarly, I do not recall a sufficiently in-depth discussion about
>> audio codecs (though there has been a bit more discussion on the
>> reflector in this regard).  I find it strange that we consider making
>> an declared-as-royalty-bearing audio codec mandatory, without even
>> having the slightest idea of the licensing terms beyond the RAND
>> terms offered. Strangely, we are not providing the right holder with
>> a timeline similar as the one used for H.264.  Perhaps we should work
>> with the Qualcomm guys to see whether they would be willing to
>> provide an RF license with a field of use restriction to webrtc.  As
>> the very minimum, I would request the opus codec being profiled such
>> that most obvious matches between patent claims offered under royalty
>> bearing RAND terms and opus encoder and decoder as to be used in
>> webrtc be eliminated.
>>
>> To summarize, without having those (and perhaps a few more) points
>> discussed in public on the reflector, I believe that it is too early
>> to adopt your draft as a WG draft.
>>
>> Stephan
>>
>> *From: *"Bran, Cary"<Cary.Bran at plantronics.com
>> <mailto:Cary.Bran%20at%20plantronics.com>>
>> *Date: *Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:25:48 +0000
>> *To: *"rtcweb-chairs at tools.ietf.org
>> <mailto:rtcweb-chairs%20at%20tools.ietf.org>"<rtcweb-chairs at
>> tools.ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-chairs%20at%20tools.ietf.org>>
>> *Cc: *"rtcweb at ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb%20at%20ietf.org>"<rtcweb at
>> ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb%20at%20ietf.org>>
>> *Subject: *[rtcweb] Codec Draft
>>
>> Hello WebRTC chairs,
>>
>> I have updated and submitted a 02 version of the WebRTC Codec draft:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01.txt
>>
>> I believe that this draft is representative of areas where the
>> working group has achieved consensus and at this time I would like to
>> ask that the 01 draft be adopted as a working group document.
>>
>> I look forward to your feedback.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> *Cary Bran*
>>
>> Senior Director Advanced Software Technology and Architecture
>>
>> Office:  +1 831-458-7737     Cell: +1 206-661-2398
>>
>> *Plantronics*Simply Smarter Communications^(TM)
>>
>> 345 Encinal St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents,
>> files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain
>> information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you
>> are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for
>> delivering it to the intended recipient, please DO NOT disclose the
>> contents to another person, store or copy the information in any
>> medium, or use any of the information contained in or attached to
>> this transmission for any purpose. If you have received this
>> transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply
>> email or at privacy at plantronics.com
>> <mailto:privacy%20at%20plantronics.com>, and destroy the original
>> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any
>> manner.
>>
>> For further information about Plantronics - the Company, its
>> products, brands, partners, please visit our website
>> www.plantronics.com<http://www.plantronics.com>om>.
>>
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb at ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb%20at%20ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents,
>> files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain
>> information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you
>> are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for
>> delivering it to the intended recipient, please DO NOT disclose the
>> contents to another person, store or copy the information in any
>> medium, or use any of the information contained in or attached to
>> this transmission for any purpose. If you have received this
>> transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply
>> email or at privacy at plantronics.com, and destroy the original
>> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any
>> manner.
>>
>> For further information about Plantronics - the Company, its
>> products, brands, partners, please visit our website
>> www.plantronics.com.
>>
>> Rob
>
>