Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday agenda slot

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 12 March 2013 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 A696E11E8126 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.645
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sLNzLGw-oFA0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60AC611E811D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A082E39E1C9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:43:21 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id orW4RURyVOup for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:43:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:dc4b:da73:da24:d309] (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:dc4b:da73:da24:d309]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0053239E1AD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:43:19 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <513F7745.3020302@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:43:17 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <513F68C0.4010106@ericsson.com> <DD34B1B0-2C18-4081-81CC-584192CC726C@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <DD34B1B0-2C18-4081-81CC-584192CC726C@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday agenda slot
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: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:43:25 -0000

On 03/12/2013 07:12 PM, David Singer wrote:
> I am sorry, I don't understand.
>
> At the last meeting, the codec discussion was deferred at the request of one company and with no reason offered.  It was delayed so late that people, such as my colleague, who had flown in for this discussion had already arrived when it was deferred.
>
> This time, we have late-breaking news which is missing important details, warrants significant preparatory discussion before the meeting, and you have justified requests for time from multiple companies, and you go ahead?

I am very sympathetic with the plight of people who don't have time to 
analyze the new information provided. Believe me, we did the best we 
could to make it available earlier - but as you know, it is not possible 
to announce a deal until the deal has actually been signed.

At the last meeting, we knew that this was likely to happen, but we 
could (of course) not breathe a word about it - it was clear from the 
traffic on the mailing list and the arguments being fielded in 
presentations that in the absence of information about the agreement, 
our assertions about the IPR situation of VP8 would simply not be taken 
at face value. This was the reason we requested a delay at that time.

At this meeting, we believe the important cards are on the table: H.264 
is still a royalty-required codec in all its profiles, and has many 
patent holders insisting on royalties being paid both outside and inside 
the MPEG-LA patent pool; VP8 is still a codec where all the IPR holders 
that have made declarations have declared their willingness to license 
on a royalty free basis (either directly or via Google).

We appreciate the need to have time to evaluate the specific words of 
the license statements that are forthcoming, and the need for the people 
who haven't made their IPR declarations over the last couple of years of 
discussion to do so within the next couple of weeks - but we do think 
that it is important to use the face to face time that we have here in 
Orlando to lay to rest any *other* issues than the licensing terms and 
other issues derived from Google's announcement.

Harald