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

[Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>]

I cited those three players just as examples of known positions. There are several others, of course.

This proposal puts the large initial burden of IPR risk and/or cost on the browser vendors... 

I think we would need to know how happy Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla (plus the other major browser vendors ) are with a requirement that both H.264 and VP8 be included with their browser and/or operating system.

We may be tired of this, but it isn't like we have a royalty-free option for H.264 MPEG-LA or IP risk indemnification from Google.. So what's changed for the browser makers?

Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)

> On Nov 9, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> It appears that we're running headlong into another in-person discussion about the relative merits of H.264 and VP8 as MTI candidates again. Matthew Kaufman has argued that this conversation is doomed to failure because no major player has been willing to change their position. The players he cited were Cisco, Google, and Mozilla, who have represented the three main positions on this topic pretty effectively. Although we participate as individuals in the IETF, I think it's fair to say that the last time we had this conversation, the median positions of participants from those companies were "H.264 or die", "VP8 or die", and "either one as long as it's *only* one", respectively.
> 
> However, even if nothing else has changed, I think one salient point may have become quite important: we're all tired of this. Over two years ago, in March of 2012 -- before I even had an particular interest in WebRTC except as a user -- this had already become such a long-running acrimonious debate that I was brought in as a neutral third party to try to mediate. I'm weary of this argument; and, with the exception of a few aggressive voices who seem to enjoy the battle more than the outcome, I'm hearing a similar exhausted timbre in the messages of other participants (and the key stakeholders in particular).
> 
> So, I want to float a proposal that represents a compromise, to see if we can finally close this issue. First, I want to start out by reiterating a well-worn observation that the hallmark of a good compromise is that nobody leaves happy, but everyone can force themselves to accept it. And I want to be crystal clear: the solution I'm about to float just barely clears the bar of what I think I can live with. This proposal is based on an observation that the dominating issues in this conversation remain those of licensing, not technology or even incumbency. I’ve discussed this extensively with representatives of all three of the players I mention above, and they are willing to sign on.
> 
> This proposal is based on the definitions of "WebRTC User Agent", "WebRTC device", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint" in section 2.2 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-12.txt. My proposal would be as follows:
> 
> WebRTC User Agents MUST implement both VP8 and H.264.
> 
> WebRTC devices MUST implement both VP8 and H.264. 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. For absolute, crystal clarity, this provision is only applicable to WebRTC devices, and not to WebRTC User Agents. 
> 
> WebRTC-compatible endpoints are free to implement any video codecs they see fit, if any (this follows logically from the definition of "WebRTC-compatible endpoint," and doesn't really need to be stated, but I want this proposal to be as explicit as possible).
> 
> This has the property of ensuring that all devices and user agents can work with all devices and user agents. This has the property of giving no one exactly what they want. And, unlike any other previous     plans, this has the property of coming to a decision while maintaining pressure on the only parties who can make a change in the IPR landscape to do so.
> 
> /a
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb