Re: [rtcweb] FW: Liaison Statement to IETF (SC 29 N 13820)

Krasimir Kolarov <> Mon, 04 November 2013 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C11211E81A7 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 06:00:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.605, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XbcdSNhYVdjy for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 06:00:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF6F11E81C3 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 06:00:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Received: from ([]) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 ( 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <> for; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:00:12 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11807158-b7efa6d000002d28-c0-5277a86c3658
Received: from jimbu ( []) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 3B.EE.11560.C68A7725; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:00:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01 ( 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <> for; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:00:12 -0800 (PST)
References: <>
In-reply-to: <>
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11A501)
From: Krasimir Kolarov <>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:00:04 +0100
To: Stephan Wenger <>
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OVTdnRXmQwc4T0hZr/7WzOzB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEr48+7O8wF97QqPjyZwNzAeFOpi5GTQ0LARGLilvUsELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAQamCR+v+1gAkkICexikli1ohzC1pH4ve0AO4jNKyAu8froFEYQm1NAV+LqoflA 9RwczALqElOm5IKEmQW0JZ68u8AKUW4jMX36czaIuJfE/reLWSH2ykkc7lsBZrMJaEl0XOsB qxEWcJZY+eoD2HgWAVWJN6uvg8VFBFQkDt38wTKBUWAWkitmIWyehWTzAkbmVYwCRak5iZWm eokFBTmpesn5uZsYQUHXUBixg/H/MqtDjAIcjEo8vAVXy4KEWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifCuKCoP EuJNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsQozcGiJM7bwQeUEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2CyTJxcEo1MG4zqAyJ6Dku o7j6svCb/js3t5VvilP2mrnnEeeqByePbIj7xBTC6/SCP+m0yddLvo+2z3/V9sHu+YnIli17 q35L/Jq+bNmpgOm8kRt/ffnD+SXp6psJVhx81bzXlqTfTtxy0OTH5mKRg1Jtcy2YMsJ3uAs1 p8uVmn/ZfvaJjtCpj1daF+69ExWvxFKckWioxVxUnAgAbAKiuDYCAAA=
Cc: Jari Arkko <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] FW: Liaison Statement to IETF (SC 29 N 13820)
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:00:39 -0000


Thank you for the extensive description. 

One correction - WebVC is in fact Constrained Baseline AVC ( or H.264).
It is at DIS stage in MPEG.


Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Stephan Wenger <> wrote:
> Hi rtcweb and Jari,
> Jari, please distribute further as you deem necessary, with or without my
> notes below.
> The attached liaison statement, received from MPEG tonight, is addressed
> to the ³IETF² (which is why Jari is copied specifically), but I believe
> it¹s mostly if not exclusively rtcweb that is interested.  Note that
> MPEG¹s closing plenary was past Friday; this almost sets a record for
> turn-around time.
> The liaison statement is short and concise, so I do not attempt to
> summarize it. 
> To put things into perspective (with the caveat that I do not attend most
> technical meetings in MPEG, as I¹m busy with JCT-VC), allow me to fill in
> some context
> IVC is a cleaned-up version of the MPEG-1 video compression technology,
> riding the expiration of many of the second generation video coding
> patents (MPEG-1 part 2 was ratified in 1993).  WebVC has many similarities
> with the Chinese AVS, and both are essentially stripped down versions of
> H.264 (baseline) with bug fixes and minor enhancements of known H.264
> shortcomings.  VCB is VP8 with an MPEG-style specification and, AFAIK and
> so far, compatible with what¹s out as VP8 in the wild.
> WebVC is fairly well along the approval process.  Despite the ³good
> results² reported, few folks I talk to expect IVC to go anywhere anytime
> soon.  Some were expecting that VCB would enter ISO¹s approval process at
> this meeting (issue of a Committee Draft, CD), but that also didn¹t happen.
> Many on this list are probably more familiar with the IETF¹s and W3C¹s
> patent policies than with MPEG¹s, and the additional constraints used in
> video coding in MPEG.  So here is a quick primer.  The common ITU/ISO/IEC
> patent policy and its associated guidelines require formal, binding IPR
> declarations with authorized signature once the spec is stable and its
> clear that the patented technology is included, which implies to most that
> declarations are expected only towards the end of the approval process.
> However, contributors in all three aforementioned projects (though not in
> most other MPEG subgroups) are expected make non-binding written
> statements in their contributions, similar to what happened in JVT.  There
> is also an oral call for IPR at the begin of any MPEG meeting, but that is
> boilerplate and the reply is almost always silence.
> All three technologies are developed in a relatively small sub-group (a
> few dozen people at most) while the majority of video coding experts (the
> record was around 350, IIRC) sit in the group known as JCT-VC and work on
> H.265.  It is entirely possibly that ³RAND" or even ³unavailable² IPR
> declarations will be received for all three standards under development
> towards the end of the process, without an early warning by non-binding
> written or oral statements in the subgroup.  Those declarations would
> AFAIK still be timely, because a) the patent policy guidelines discourage
> written IPR declarations to the ISO secretariat before the spec is stable
> (something many people associate with the DIS state), b) many companies
> interested in video coding do not follow those three projects in detail,
> perhaps because they focus on H.265, and c) once the projects are in the
> final stages of the approval process, companies may wake up because,
> arguably, only then the declaration requirements come into play.  Note
> also that, unlike W3C, ISO does not have a formal process to deal with
> situations where an unfavorable IPR declaration has been received.  The
> policy only sets the requirement that the approved standard does not
> include provisions dependent on the unavailable patent.
> The common ITU/ISO/IEC patent policy can be found here:
> The guidelines are here:
> (I¹m using the ITU web site as I know where to find things; I¹m sure you
> can find identical docs on the ISO site somewhere.)
> Regards,
> Stephan
>> On 11.4.2013, 00:48 , "WATANABE Shinji" <> wrote:
>> Dear Sir or Madam,
>> In accordance with Resolutions taken
>> at the 106th SC 29/WG 11 meeting,
>> 2013-10-28/11-01, Geneva, Switzerland,
>> I am pleased to send attached Liaison statement.
>> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>> Thank you for your cooperation.
>> Best Regards,
>> Shinji Watanabe
>> -----
>> WATANABE Shinji (Mr.)
>> Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29
>> 308-3 Kikai-Shinko-Kaikan Bldg.
>> 3-5-8 Shiba-koen, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0011 Japan
>> Tel: +81-3-3431-2808 Fax: +81-3-3431-6493
>> Mail:
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list