Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Rob Glidden <> Thu, 15 December 2011 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F93F21F8B02 for <>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:46:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n+9L1KkwVU1I for <>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:46:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id DFCE021F8AF3 for <>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:46:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2011 18:46:23 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2011 18:46:23 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2011 18:46:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 97085 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2011 18:46:22 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; 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=X5JAIR/MX3OH85ZfCR8LS31v5oJCa2tw9XuP5MAk1XN56CYYLrDogE4qD11fKPPxNcin+63qBgxCm11EwrGT1ZPZWWo/+wchGUj1iZJeQ7uEQmk0RL3tN9wKFWfTB754niVyZOlKAtuO0i+CD8bGB0L0fQwulDvf1WUmBNXGyGY= ;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s1024; t=1323974782; bh=+NfWtA9teOQi9ujI8ae7p5Y/QMgydt7XwpbqqeanWNE=; 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=U/S3+nkSijbdWSDH+dSgFjTTgg7Z41noAPZn71yByQKohdUCAkWKtQ1swDdBZUZ1A+1V7hicQhBpUtsP73Td3GShRvFDQfkjR2K3oFmzBYnQlfFiKMe6qVSecCGg6e4iJARXUj5fcIv2w5ldUWjm7zRgrn8gtt9irr6Z+hXOiks=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: Y1evWnYVM1koCMt12B.veHKHve9HYpX1BTM1KsW9qOALFX0 L4Is9TqdXOldwdZ2SNy4YVLPzdVU2eBA.dFq5dsv4e97wzC6yRLZglt4yF.s BJpYb5JMdaEJ3t1VylNBFgaGYOrW1pU515eedAixjpLtwSFw6xvcCgkF5Cr9 sxr4og.CBAUB8zTdYFpRNTMl1DzA_egIPliICdVUAcyz71l5Zd8ZeeihduTf XASKXPn.vBELUFqozWGFYjItOnZAd3WjbZP_VKSgNPatxjaZmVIAB.47DVIR wxFhTvs54UZdk649FuuSVMFvZcgI8ieWzFOm7gBWneHGb3HtbLBpCWlULek3 6d1oR8rkPc4c.Kr5yFQQHNR341CJgNuSXBuGaKTTP0NzWecbPCXCJhlno1HJ 2X1.1xb1JFvDafuFPYjgwPb0VpCe1sJj7qZbeA59ai.lwa2ZaFw6iKAi0am3 0S9ysqCw7G7zKjK9JT7Bm_piNQyj1fVMsYpE34oUmxndk58Ef3naAdT8uax9 YXXIXym4j_jE-
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xflwSnaswBCuS46GvTyhPI4RUJpgPG5UXouB5Vxqo4t9fsHeH0I-
Received: from [] (rob.glidden@ with plain) by with SMTP; 15 Dec 2011 10:46:22 -0800 PST
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:45:59 -0800
From: Rob Glidden <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Blizzard <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, Cary Bran <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:46:26 -0000


No, the revised text doesn't remove decision responsibility from this 
group, it does the opposite, by being accurate and following procedure.

The old text doesn't even get profiles right, and as said by others has 
overly and unnecessarily ambitious timeline and muddles licensing.

If a liaison-like communication is intended, use the established 
procedure for that -- IETF is a Category A liaison to SC 29.  Alias 
emails and non-consensus docs lack standing, don't establish that 
meaningful avenues were ever even tried, let alone exhausted, and might 
not even be read.

"MPEG-LA-is-a-monopolist" characterization casts wrong procedural net, 
among reasons pending lawsuits -- one more reason to be accurate and 
follow procedure.

Really is the language below so objectionable?  It is straightforward 
and constructive.


"The REQUIRED video codec should 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."

On 12/14/2011 3:09 PM, Chris Blizzard wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rob Glidden"<>
>> To: "Chris Blizzard"<>
>> Cc: "Harald Alvestrand"<>>,, "Cary Bran"<>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:40:00 AM
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
>> Chris:
>> Please see rewording in email to Harald.
>> Sharing your healthy skepticism, nothing has changed is no reason to
>> do
>> nothing. The proposed language fixes text, whether doubting or
>> timelining progress merited. If existing standards aren't as good as
>> they should be, work to improve them.
> We've already got a defacto standard in WebM, even though it hasn't gone through a standards process.  Half the market of browsers have indicated they are willing to use it as the default codec for this effort (and the other half haven't even said they are willing to support WebRTC at all!)  We're also been shipping it for HTML5 support for quite a while so there's quite a bit of in-the-field experience with it.
> But the bigger problem is that your text removes the responsibility for the decision from this group and moves it to a standards organization which has no credible history of creating royalty-free standards.  It also creates an indefinite timeline for a decision.  That's not an improvement over what the text says today, so I think it's a bad idea to include it in the text.  I'm not comfortable with that.
> To get at the heart of the issue, I think that many people would like to use H.264 support as the default.  It's lower-friction and widely deployed.  But that's entirely up to the rights holders for that technology.  That's why there's a date and a specific call-out to MPEG LA as the monopoly rights holder in the text.  It's up to them to decide, and they have three months from tomorrow to do so.
> --Chris