Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)

[Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>]

This message didn't make it through the Microsoft email system (looked 
like spam), so I'm replying on-thread from my personal account...

On 2/21/2013 2:26 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Bullets 4 and 5 of the RTCWEB charter call out this work of this type
> as in-scope, with codecs
> mentioned specifically.

I think you mean bullet 6, as neither 4 nor 5 is applicable in the copy 
of the charter here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/charter/

But just because the charter mistakenly calls this out as something for 
the IETF to solve doesn't mean that the IETF is the right place to have 
the discussion. I will note that several other IETF protocols for A/V 
interoperability, such as SIP, have enjoyed wide success without wasting 
any valuable meeting time trying to standardize on a single audio and 
video codec... and there's certainly many other unresolved issues within 
the IETF that are blocking a final W3C API specification.

>   If working group participants are persuaded
> by your argument, though, I point out
> that the W3C has already sent a liaison statement on this topic
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1215/)
> If the working group wishes to be guided by the W3C on this topic, in
> other words, it can use this liaison statement
> as guidance.

I will second the note that no W3C member companies contributed to this 
liason statement, nor was it discussed in any WEBRTC meeting that I or 
any of my coworkers has attended, and so this isn't super helpful as 
guidance... misleading, in fact.

My employer's position is outlined in blog posts such as 
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx

Nothing has changed since this and related postings were made. The codec 
that has been submitted as an alternative to H.264 is still not the 
product of any standards body activity (and so does not enjoy any of the 
IPR protections for users that it might otherwise have) and the company 
who has submitted this has not changed their license agreement in any 
substantial way (to, for instance, include indemnification).

If there is a plan for a substantial change along these lines to be 
announced prior to the (inappropriate) discussion at the upcoming IETF 
meeting, I hope it can be made public with sufficient time for our large 
legal department to review it, otherwise I don't see how anyone could 
expect a revised opinion at that time.

Matthew Kaufman