Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

"Cavigioli, Chris" <chris.cavigioli@intel.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <chris.cavigioli@intel.com>
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 595081A6FE0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:13:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GUARANTEED_100_PERCENT=2.699, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 5SY5htFGbtko for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 938841A1A6B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2014 11:13:22 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,546,1413270000"; d="scan'208,217";a="635150879"
Received: from orsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.131]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2014 11:13:22 -0800
Received: from orsmsx152.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.226.39) by ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.225.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:13:22 -0800
Received: from fmsmsx153.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.6) by ORSMSX152.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.226.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:13:21 -0800
Received: from fmsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.149]) by FMSMSX153.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.9.209]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:13:21 -0800
From: "Cavigioli, Chris" <chris.cavigioli@intel.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
Thread-Index: AQHQE9ZowNIQYgNYl0eTI4IK20km2pyIDo6AgAAQQYD//32nQIAABAtA
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 19:13:20 +0000
Message-ID: <E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD24012D3C2@fmsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <5486C48D.8040602@alvestrand.no> <F092E8C6-380C-4B20-B71F-449162617BC5@apple.com> <54873575.3030804@nostrum.com> <53ECE529-C011-4666-B044-226613CA263D@apple.com> <E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD24012D343@fmsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD24012D343@fmsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.200.106]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD24012D3C2fmsmsx115amrcor_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Qxk_8TQF75PFS5PqdDfTf6Jm7Xc
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
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: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 19:13:25 -0000

To be clear, the statement below is a Chris Cavigioli statement, not an official statement from my employer.   -chris

From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cavigioli, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:12 AM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....


Paying for codecs is cost of doing business.

-          The whole TV ecosystem uses MPEG-2, H.264, etc ... MPEG or Dolby audio ...

-          The whole mobile phone ecosystem uses H.264, AMR, etc …

-          All cameras and displays use standard codecs

-          Almost all online content today is using standard codecs

-          Paying for codecs pays for research labs to continue their research to invent new things

-          There is no performant codec today that is 100% guaranteed royalty free – that is a mirage



The problem I see is that MPEG-LA or other patent pooling organizations don’t typically have a provision for small and medium-sized businesses as they probably don’t have a deep IP portfolio in this space.  That is the problem that should be fixed going forward.

-chris



-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Singer
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:45 AM
To: Adam Roach
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....





> On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:46 , Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com<mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> wrote:

>

> On 12/9/14 11:32, David Singer wrote:

>> I would also like to know from those confirming the sense of the room, whether THEY THEMSELVES intend to...

>

> Wait, you're pressing other companies for future product plans? With the implication that doing so is a prerequisite to participating in the discussion?

>

> That's a mighty sharp blade there. You might check where it's pointed.



Yes, I realize that almost no-one can make promises about what they will ship. And some companies will be in a position where they can’t say anything.  And yes, my company has a strict policy of not promising what we will or won’t do in the future.  But, hypothetically, if the statement was “must support H.264” I could clearly indicate that that I expect it to be unproblematic.



But surely those that see the dual mandate as unproblematic for them to implement can say that, can’t they?  Surely we can see at least a reasonable number of “yes, we would hope/expect/intend to ship both”, as a non-binding indication?



I mean, the draft ‘must do both’ would require people who have a principled objection to paying fees, having to pay for H.264. I am curious, are people willing to let their principles (and money) go, in order to comply with the ‘must’?



Obviously, I am trying to assess whether this compromise would, in fact, be effective in practice — would enough people abide by its intent that we’d get the interoperability that is the point of the mandate?  I don’t want to be citing RFC 6919 :-).



David Singer

Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.



_______________________________________________

rtcweb mailing list

rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb