Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Nokia mincing

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 12/19/2013 07:50 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> I think the biggest problem is that people only want to maintain code
> for one codec. If you already have H.264 support implemented, you will
> oppose every other codec, no matter how big the advantages.
> Therefore, a compromise is not possible with such a position.

Actually very few people are going to maintain code for only one codec.

This might have been seen as a possibility when we started this effort, 
but at the moment, it's clear that people will want to ship their 
favourite out of {H.265, VP9} in addition to whatever is agreed as MTI.

So at worst we're looking at increasing the support burden from 2 to 3. 
In many cases, I suspect that the delta is even less, because a lot of 
the people with "legacy" equipment are already supporting other "legacy" 
codecs.


>
> Silvia.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Mohammed Raad
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Correct on changing the subject line, this really started as a clarification
>> question and then grew, sorry.
>>
>> What is relevant to the straw poll thread is that we should have a correct
>> summary of where the IPR situation really is.
>>
>> It has been pointed out that the MTI should satisfy options a) or b) on the
>> ietf declaration form. As matters stand AVC/h264 does not satisfy that, this
>> has been made very clear through the ISO process. On the other hand, VP8 has
>> so far withstood court challenges, as you point out - something which AVC
>> could not BTW - and the technology owning entities willing to license VP8
>> relevant technology under the required royalty free terms has grown
>> significantly during the past year.
>>
>> It would seem very clear that the codec that is closer to the royalty free
>> ideal situation is VP8.
>>
>> As such, it is surprising to see AVC proponents opposing the adoption of
>> VP8, even as one of two MTI codecs - something that VP8 proponents appear to
>> be saying is acceptable - based on IPR arguments.
>>
>> If members of this WG wish to move towards a compromise that allows webrtc
>> to fulfill the potential that it has then this is their opportunity. I
>> certainly encourage them to take this opportunity.
>>
>> Mohammed
>>
>>
>> Please people, changing the subject for side discussions like the Chairs
>> requested isn't rocket science ...
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:47:14PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>> My gosh.  Nokia has people at the IETF, and they made statements
>>> and have not minced words.
>> They also have people making statements in the courts, where they
>> seem to be getting, well, thoroughly minced!
>>
>>
>> The interesting question isn't Nokia's intention here, I don't think
>> anyone seriously doubts what it is.  The interesting questions are
>> twofold:
>>
>>   a) Do they even have the slimmest leg to stand on with their claims
>>      against VP8?  There's so far no supporting evidence to say that
>>      they do, and plenty stacking up against them.
>>
>>   b) Given their stubborn refusal to make any declaration about their
>>      intentions or IPR for H.264 here, does anybody have even the
>>      slightest idea what their terms are for licencing the Cisco blob?
>>
>>
>> Meritorious or meretricious, the devil is in such little details.
>>
>>    Ron
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb