Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8A611E81FD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9rHBobpdxQXi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x230.google.com (mail-oa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A040D11E8205 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m17so161752oag.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2IqEoqwZkDeTThnAZ8Z40tuIzuSZKUFB0qa7UFGCsJw=; b=iDlRT2Em/YFD5/UWG2STepkP57VpSGv08QvIvSX3ns231y7EQQtAVO22RutyXQ3SPv l/oKdaa+rTsyZajKEiCywC39IsVchFqyP9PBYNBSwH+BjvEIRN2o8c0RHBUebrjD4p3k bVinaBCgQHoycGDEG5GCgPHZ5Subq8wmSeRqcSyiwuLFZeMdsze+uvwKw6k18/sclzGx jfK7Yz1MEfQ9qu8N1RCRkxKoaRFkfQg3D1xDGPn77nMHDrhI9PtssMXxXAit4tmsIjx8 BasleA8MA2f3qri7SAHlCbf+dWAcdGyMuFrDwt9AtbSiYizVWfDlkO9HtDybI7oJN7HQ 4mQQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.84.132 with SMTP id z4mr315843oby.49.1382652578080; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.94.40 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.94.40 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4843D45DC08@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <526826AF.5030308@librevideo.org> <52690090.2050609@alvestrand.no> <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD683@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4843D45DC08@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:09:37 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kTe-A3+Lf-mWhzNUHRMRf+jNN89Mwj=wMRhYYgfdmL-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0111c09ac3b91604e983e34d"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:09:41 -0000

If VP8 is chosen as MTI, you'd need to come out as per IETF requirements.
So would others. That's a good thing. If there indeed is anything there.
Silvia.
 On 25 Oct 2013 03:11, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
wrote:

>  On the IPR issue, Google reached agreement with 11 patent holders. There
> are at least 31 companies in the MPEG-LA H.264 pool. There is considerable
> technical overlap between VP8 and H.264.****
>
> ** **
>
> My employer is one of those in the H.264 pool, and wasn’t one of the 11
> companies Google reached an agreement with.****
>
> ** **
>
> Draw your own conclusions and take your own IPR risks.****
>
> ** **
>
> Personally I’d rather the IPR devil I know vs. the IPR devil I don’t know.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Google could fix this for most potential users (through indemnification,
> similar to what Oracle offers its Linux licensees) but has chosen not to.
> You can draw your own conclusion there, too.****
>
> ** **
>
> Matthew Kaufman****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Bo Burman
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:27 AM
> *To:* Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue****
>
> ** **
>
> 1) We do agree that H.264 Constrained Baseline and VP8 are comparable in
> terms of video quality. But do not forget that Constrained Baseline's twin
> sister H.264 Constrained High outperforms VP8 by a huge margin. This is
> also relevant.****
>
> ** **
>
> 2) The "back-and forth of numbers" seems to refer to Ericsson's work where
> we tried to make a fair comparison to evaluate the extraordinary claims
> from Google that VP8 is 70 or 40 percent better than x264. We found serious
> issues with the way Google performed the test, maybe the most striking were
> the use of padding (+8% for x264) and excessive number of threads (+10% to
> +40% for x264) to add overhead to x264. That Google managed to remember the
> threading parameter only when it helped****
>
> VP8 (the speed test) is also quite remarkable.****
>
> ** **
>
> 3) Regarding IPR, this is a difficult topic, but we're not at all
> convinced that VP8 is royalty free. For example, there is an IETF IPR
> disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/) where the IPR holder
> seems unwilling to license (on any terms), and
> http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/german-vp8-infringement-cases-show.htmland
> http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/itc-institutes-investigation-of-nokias.htmlshow that there are in fact ongoing litigations regarding VP8 - and this is
> only skimming the surface of what is available in public space.****
>
> ** **
>
> /Bo****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Harald Alvestrand
> *Sent:* den 24 oktober 2013 13:12
> *To:* rtcweb@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue****
>
> ** **
>
> On 10/23/2013 09:42 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:****
>
> On 10/23/2013 02:51 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:****
>
>  Just a reminder:****
>
> The back-and-forth of numbers doesn't change the core question of this****
>
> debate.****
>
> Both codecs are capable of high quality video encoding, and performance****
>
> numbers are comparable.****
>
> ** **
>
> The real core question is the IPR issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> The tradition of the IETF says that allowing only business models that****
>
> can sustain royalty agreements and royalty payments is Bad for the Internet.****
>
> ** **
>
> The dominant video codec, H.264, is a royalty-required codec.****
>
> ** **
>
> Do we switch now, or do we give up and live with royalties forever?****
>
> ** **
>
>  ** **
>
> Harald,****
>
> ** **
>
> I would like to see some references to the tradition of the IETF that****
>
> you've quoted.****
>
> ** **
>
> For the record, I agree with the sentiment, but I'd like to be able to****
>
> back up the claim itself with references or explicit decisions that were****
>
> made in that regard.  I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, just****
>
> looking for citations to back up the arguments, both on and off list.****
>
> ** **
>
>  Basil, very happy to provide references!
>
> RFC 3979, a core document about IPR in the IETF, 2005:
>
> ****
>
> 8.  Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups****
>
> ** **
>
>    In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR****
>
>    claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of****
>
>    royalty-free licensing.  But IETF working groups have the discretion****
>
>    to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory****
>
>    terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this****
>
>    technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims****
>
>    or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.****
>
>
> The complete section gives some more details, but this is the central
> quote.
>
> You may also enjoy reading the section of RFC 6569 (the guidelines that
> were followed in the OPUS work) that deals with IPR:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6569#page-8
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>