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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

FWIW, I'm firmly with Tim on the proposal: I don't like to declare that
a royalty-bearing technology is mandatory to implement in an IETF
standard, but given the realities of the situation, I think it is better
to adopt this proposal than continuing to leave the MTI decision in flux.

About the language on "reconsideration": Given all the legal issues
involved, it would in my opinion be foolhardy to adopt a prescriptive,
mechanical trigger for a reclassification - but I would be unhappy about
abandoning all hope that the situation could improve - if we are in a
situation (years from now?) where it's obvious that we have a royalty
free, safely deployable codec available, it would be a strange thing not
to say "the way is clear, let's pick the freely available alternative!"

I do expect that, if the proposal is adopted, browsers will support both
codecs for the foreseeable future (and probably longer than that - "the
foreseeable future" tends to be short these days). Adam's
"reconsideration" proposal applies only to the class of non-browser
things that implement RTCWEB (aka "devices").

Harald


On 11/10/2014 11:14 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi,
> I like and support the spirit of this proposal, but have one issue
> with the formulation below, and would like to see it clarified.
> Stephan
>
>
> From: Adam Roach <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Sunday, November 9, 2014 at 18:08
> To: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
>
> […]
> 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. 
> […]
>
> First: “the IETF WILL CHANGE”: I don’t think that such forward
> looking, absolute statements are appropriate.  And probably also not
> correct.  Some of the objections here are not over royalties, but over
> ecosystem dominance; never mind the money.  Whether or not the IETF
> changes its opinion will at least partly be based based on the power
> distribution of players subscribing to ecosystem agendas at the time
> the situation changes.
>
> Second, “all IPR declarations known for the codec being of (IETF)
> Royalty-Free or (ISO) type 1” is IMO not compelling evidence for a
> royalty free codec; for many reasons that have been spelled out
> before.  Similarly, type 2 RAND statements are not evidence that
> royalties are necessarily being paid.  
> To me, evidence for a (practically) RF H.264 codec would be an MPEG-LA
> pool rightholder decision not to require the payment of royalties.
>  For VP[8,9], the licensing arrangement google has made got a long way
> to convince me, but what would be needed in addition is to overcome
> known objections by players, however expressed.  (Note that legal
> departments will typically be very reluctant to submit type 1
> statements, whereas the business groups may be more easily able to
> communicate a company decision for zero royalty.)  For newer codecs,
> what would be needed is both very wide participation (including all
> the key players in both IETF and VCEG/MPEG) and RF declarations in
> whatever organization doing the work.  Clearly, at this point, none of
> H.265, VP10, or Daala fulfill those conditions.
>
> Thanks,
> Stephan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.