Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Mon, 10 November 2014 19:15 UTC
Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
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 28D171AC3AD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:15:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 eErHEPO8GFcC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:15:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0704.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::704]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 111CE1A1B3B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CY1PR0701MB1276.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (25.160.149.19) by CY1PR0701MB1275.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (25.160.149.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.16.15; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:14:38 +0000
Received: from CY1PR0701MB1276.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.149.19]) by CY1PR0701MB1276.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.149.19]) with mapi id 15.01.0016.006; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:14:38 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
Thread-Index: AQHP/ItBpFNPg+hX/0+kjwh/lYHl/ZxZlGAA
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:14:37 +0000
Message-ID: <D08625BB.4ACA8%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [31.133.161.244]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0701MB1275;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0701MB1275;
x-forefront-prvs: 039178EF4A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(164054003)(199003)(189002)(19580395003)(2501002)(66066001)(50986999)(16236675004)(19580405001)(31966008)(106356001)(105586002)(122556002)(106116001)(76176999)(95666004)(99286002)(99396003)(54356999)(40100003)(120916001)(107886001)(107046002)(86362001)(92566001)(92726001)(97736003)(20776003)(77156002)(101416001)(62966003)(87936001)(36756003)(2656002)(46102003)(64706001)(4396001)(21056001)(561944003)(77096003)(42262002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0701MB1275; H:CY1PR0701MB1276.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D08625BB4ACA8stewesteweorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ZP1lgPzN5DuBUvR8F57THHmX2w8
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 19:15:26 -0000
Hi, I like and support the spirit of this proposal, but have one issue with the formulation below, and would like to see it clarified. Stephan From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com<mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> Date: Sunday, November 9, 2014 at 18:08 To: "rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>> Subject: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal [...] 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. [...] First: "the IETF WILL CHANGE": I don't think that such forward looking, absolute statements are appropriate. And probably also not correct. Some of the objections here are not over royalties, but over ecosystem dominance; never mind the money. Whether or not the IETF changes its opinion will at least partly be based based on the power distribution of players subscribing to ecosystem agendas at the time the situation changes. Second, "all IPR declarations known for the codec being of (IETF) Royalty-Free or (ISO) type 1" is IMO not compelling evidence for a royalty free codec; for many reasons that have been spelled out before. Similarly, type 2 RAND statements are not evidence that royalties are necessarily being paid. To me, evidence for a (practically) RF H.264 codec would be an MPEG-LA pool rightholder decision not to require the payment of royalties. For VP[8,9], the licensing arrangement google has made got a long way to convince me, but what would be needed in addition is to overcome known objections by players, however expressed. (Note that legal departments will typically be very reluctant to submit type 1 statements, whereas the business groups may be more easily able to communicate a company decision for zero royalty.) For newer codecs, what would be needed is both very wide participation (including all the key players in both IETF and VCEG/MPEG) and RF declarations in whatever organization doing the work. Clearly, at this point, none of H.265, VP10, or Daala fulfill those conditions. Thanks, Stephan
- [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Cavigioli, Chris
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Cavigioli, Chris
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Tim Lindsey
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Alexandre GOUAILLARD
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Victor Pascual Avila
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Andrew Allen
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal stephane.proust
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Shijun Sun
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal Florian Weimer