Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Stephan Wenger <> Thu, 03 November 2011 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D7211E80DA for <>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.546
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.344, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_VISITOURSITE=2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s6qCUYLhCtZY for <>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8FD11E80AE for <>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unverified []) by (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 56237-1743317 for multiple; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:28:39 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:28:28 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: "Bran, Cary" <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3403171718_7852514"
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP ( was found in the spamhaus database.
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, 03 Nov 2011 20:28:43 -0000

Hi Cary, WG,

Cary, how did you come to your conclusion that the WG has achieved consensus
on a subject like this:
   If the MPEG-LA issues an intent to offer H.264 baseline profile on a
   royalty free basis for use in browsers before March 15, 2012, then
   the REQUIRED video codecs will be H.264 baseline.  If this does not
   happen by that the date, then the REQUIRED video codec will be VP8

Or this

   WebRTC clients are REQUIRED to implement the following audio codecs.


   o  Opus [draft-ietf-codec-opus]

I may have missed it in the flood of emails on this reflector, but I do not
recall having seen any discussion whatsoever towards a decision between the
two video codecs mentioned, let alone a decision made on commercial
constraints and an attached timeline.  Please note that I could most likely
agree to the video codec issues as drafted, with the exception of the
timeline, which is IMO overly and unnecessarily ambitious.

Similarly, I do not recall a sufficiently in-depth discussion about audio
codecs (though there has been a bit more discussion on the reflector in this
regard).  I find it strange that we consider making an
declared-as-royalty-bearing audio codec mandatory, without even having the
slightest idea of the licensing terms beyond the RAND terms offered.
Strangely, we are not providing the right holder with a timeline similar as
the one used for H.264.  Perhaps we should work with the Qualcomm guys to
see whether they would be willing to provide an RF license with a field of
use restriction to webrtc.  As the very minimum, I would request the opus
codec being profiled such that most obvious matches between patent claims
offered under royalty bearing RAND terms and opus encoder and decoder as to
be used in webrtc be eliminated.

To summarize, without having those (and perhaps a few more) points discussed
in public on the reflector, I believe that it is too early to adopt your
draft as a WG draft.


From:  "Bran, Cary" <>
Date:  Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:25:48 +0000
To:  "" <>
Cc:  "" <>
Subject:  [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Hello WebRTC chairs,
I have updated and submitted a 02 version of the WebRTC Codec draft:
I believe that this draft is representative of areas where the working group
has achieved consensus and at this time I would like to ask that the 01
draft be adopted as a working group document.
I look forward to your feedback.
Cary Bran
Senior Director Advanced Software Technology and Architecture
Office:  +1 831-458-7737     Cell: +1 206-661-2398
Plantronics Simply Smarter Communications
345 Encinal St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files
or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain information that is
confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, please DO NOT disclose the contents to another person, store or
copy the information in any medium, or use any of the information contained
in or attached to this transmission for any purpose. If you have received
this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply
email or at, and destroy the original transmission
and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

For further information about Plantronics - the Company, its products,
brands, partners, please visit our website
_______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list