Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Stephan Wenger <> Mon, 10 November 2014 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D171AC3AD for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:15:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eErHEPO8GFcC for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:15:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::704]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 111CE1A1B3B for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:14:38 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0016.006; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:14:38 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Adam Roach <>, "" <>
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: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
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;; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D08625BB4ACA8stewesteweorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 10 Nov 2014 19:15:26 -0000

I like and support the spirit of this proposal, but have one issue with the formulation below, and would like to see it clarified.

From: Adam Roach <<>>
Date: Sunday, November 9, 2014 at 18:08
To: "<>" <<>>
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.