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

Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net> Mon, 10 November 2014 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEA31A8888 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Nov 2014 18:27:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FmY_giKXC_F1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Nov 2014 18:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com (ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com [70.39.232.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8713C1A887B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2014 18:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]:39965) by ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>) id 1Xnehf-00066T-D1 for rtcweb@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2014 21:27:40 -0500
Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id fp1so6834425pdb.37 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Nov 2014 18:27:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.100.197 with SMTP id fa5mr29586318pbb.22.1415586459092; Sun, 09 Nov 2014 18:27:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.114.7 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Nov 2014 18:27:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com>
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 21:27:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+23+fE_RdNSmVhTmxGU_yntn3QgVK363GifxOwVX_zhQjMUOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d89340c2aa9050777e847
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jdrosen.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: jdrosen+jdrosen.net/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Qx4Z3ibqLA6HXZ6Hoyo1CggPIxg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:27:43 -0000

Adam -

I'm willing to sign up for this.

As you point out, this issue has been brewing for a long time and is
slowing the adoption of webrtc. We need to find a solution that works and
move the industry forward.

For the "incumbents" as you call them - the presence of h264 in
browsers will allow interop between their browser apps and existing h264
devices which can be webrtc compatible. That is the primary use case to be
solved for them and this proposal addresses it.

I hope others can get behind this as well.

Thx,
Jonathan R.

On Sunday, November 9, 2014, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; 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:
>
>
>    1. WebRTC User Agents MUST implement both VP8 and H.264.
>
>     2. 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.
>
>     3. 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
>


-- 
Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
jdrosen@jdrosen.net
http://www.jdrosen.net