Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com> Wed, 14 December 2011 10:00 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@meetecho.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 9103B21F8B22 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:00:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.281
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_VISITOURSITE=2, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
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 ZbAwINkITVVi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtplq01.aruba.it (smtplq-out18.aruba.it [62.149.158.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CB9221F8B25 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:00:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 29527 invoked by uid 89); 14 Dec 2011 09:59:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp8.aruba.it) (62.149.158.228) by smtplq01.aruba.it with SMTP; 14 Dec 2011 09:59:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 27450 invoked by uid 89); 14 Dec 2011 09:59:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lminiero-acer) (lorenzo@meetecho.com@143.225.229.166) by smtp8.ad.aruba.it with SMTP; 14 Dec 2011 09:59:58 -0000
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:59:58 +0100
From: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
To: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <20111214105958.70ffd918@lminiero-acer>
In-Reply-To: <4EE7B127.2060308@sbcglobal.net>
References: <4EE7B127.2060308@sbcglobal.net>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: smtp8.ad.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: smtplq01.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, Cary.Bran@plantronics.com
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
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: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:00:04 -0000

Hi Rob,

I'm not at all an expert in this debate so I'm not sure what "royalty
free basis for use in browsers" means: does this mean you would be
allowed, royalty free, to decode/encode H.264 baseline streams if your
encoder/decoder is the browser itself? Wouldn't this only work if such
a stream would only flow between two browsers untouched, that is, no
content adaptation/transcoding/overlays/mixing on the server side if
needed? Service and Content providers would still need a licence if I
got it correctly, or am I missing something?

Lorenzo


Il giorno Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:10:15 -0800
Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net> ha scritto:

> Cary:
> 
> I have not seen a specific follow up text, but video codec
> requirements section appears overtaken by events and should be
> changed.
> 
> Here is proposed text that will hopefully reflect consensus spirit:
> 
> ...
> 3.2. Video Codec Requirements
> If the MPEG-LA issues an intent to offer H.264 baseline profile on a 
> royalty free basis for use in browsers before March 15, 2012, then
> the REQUIRED video codecs will be H.264 baseline. If this does not
> happen by that the date, then the REQUIRED video codec will be VP8
> [I-D.webm].
> 
> The REQUIRED video codec will be a royalty-free codec which has been 
> specified by a recognized standards process such as MPEG or other 
> due-process standards group and provide reviewable substantiation of
> its royalty-free status.
> ...
> 
> For background, see:
> 
> MPEG news: a report from the 98th meeting, Geneva, Switzerland 
> <http://multimediacommunication.blogspot.com/2011/12/mpeg-news-report-from-98th-meeting.html>
> ISO/IEC MPEG to select from two options for royalty-free video 
> <http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/ISO-IEC-MPEG-to-select-from-two-options-for-royalty-free-video-1392734.html> 
> 
> Royalty-Free MPEG Video Proposals Announced 
> <http://slashdot.org/submission/1875776/royalty-free-mpeg-video-proposals-announced>
> MPEG Plus or Patent Pool Lite? MPEG Mulls Royalty-Free Proposals 
> <http://www.robglidden.com/2011/12/mpeg-plus-or-patent-pool-lite-mpeg-mulls-royalty-free-proposals/>
> Half of MPEG-2 Patents Expire in 2012 
> <http://www.robglidden.com/2011/12/half-of-mpeg-2-patents-expire-in-2012/>
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
>   Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   * /From/: "Bran, Cary" <Cary.Bran at plantronics.com
>     <mailto:Cary.Bran@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
>   * /To/: Stephan Wenger <stewe at stewe.org
> <mailto:stewe@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
>   * /Cc/: "rtcweb at ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>" <rtcweb
> at ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
>   * /Date/: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 22:00:26 +0000
>   * /References/: <E37C139C5CB78244A781E9E7B721527B5485F6 at
>     USSCMB03.plt.plantronics.com
>     <mailto:E37C139C5CB78244A781E9E7B721527B5485F6@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
>     <CAD841DD.330F9%stewe at stewe.org
>     <mailto:CAD841DD.330F9%25stewe@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>>
>   * /List-id/: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group
>     list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> After further review, I think I get your point, my apologies if I
> caused any confusion.
> 
> What I meant to say was that I believe we have captured areas where
> we have consensus in the draft.  Obviously at this time there is no 
> consensus as to which audio/video codecs will be mandatory to
> implement yet.     To be clear here, in the draft we put in a
> proposal for a mandatory to implement codec and we should have
> qualified it as an open issue, where we have no consensus.
> 
> Stephan, if you or anyone else, has a proposal as to what to add to
> the list, we would be more than happy to add it to the document and 
> correctly label the areas where we have no consensus in an attempt to 
> facilitate the discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Cary
> 
> *From:*Bran, Cary
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2011 2:02 PM
> *To:* 'Stephan Wenger'
> *Cc:* rtcweb at ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
> 
> Good points Stephan.
> 
> I agree that more discussion is needed and all I am proposing here is
> a document to capture the groups collective thinking.  I will defer
> to the chairs to decide on timing.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -Cary
> 
> *From:*Stephan Wenger [mailto:stewe at stewe.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:28 PM
> *To:* Bran, Cary; rtcweb at ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
> 
> Hi Cary, WG,
> 
> Cary, how did you come to your conclusion that the WG has achieved 
> consensus on a subject like this:
> 
>     If the MPEG-LA issues an intent to offer H.264 baseline profile
> on a
> 
>     royalty free basis for use in browsers before March 15, 2012, then
> 
>     the REQUIRED video codecs will be H.264 baseline.  If this does
> not
> 
>     happen by that the date, then the REQUIRED video codec will be VP8
> 
>     [I-D.webm].
> 
> Or this
> 
>     WebRTC clients are REQUIRED to implement the following audio
> codecs.
> 
>   
> 
>      [...]
> 
>   
> 
>     o  Opus [draft-ietf-codec-opus]
> 
> I may have missed it in the flood of emails on this reflector, but I
> do not recall having seen any discussion whatsoever towards a
> decision between the two video codecs mentioned, let alone a decision
> made on commercial constraints and an attached timeline.  Please note
> that I could most likely agree to the video codec issues as drafted,
> with the exception of the timeline, which is IMO overly and
> unnecessarily ambitious.
> 
> Similarly, I do not recall a sufficiently in-depth discussion about 
> audio codecs (though there has been a bit more discussion on the 
> reflector in this regard).  I find it strange that we consider making
> an declared-as-royalty-bearing audio codec mandatory, without even
> having the slightest idea of the licensing terms beyond the RAND
> terms offered. Strangely, we are not providing the right holder with
> a timeline similar as the one used for H.264.  Perhaps we should work
> with the Qualcomm guys to see whether they would be willing to
> provide an RF license with a field of use restriction to webrtc.  As
> the very minimum, I would request the opus codec being profiled such
> that most obvious matches between patent claims offered under royalty
> bearing RAND terms and opus encoder and decoder as to be used in
> webrtc be eliminated.
> 
> To summarize, without having those (and perhaps a few more) points 
> discussed in public on the reflector, I believe that it is too early
> to adopt your draft as a WG draft.
> 
> Stephan
> 
> *From: *"Bran, Cary" <Cary.Bran at plantronics.com 
> <mailto:Cary.Bran%20at%20plantronics.com>>
> *Date: *Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:25:48 +0000
> *To: *"rtcweb-chairs at tools.ietf.org 
> <mailto:rtcweb-chairs%20at%20tools.ietf.org>" <rtcweb-chairs at 
> tools.ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb-chairs%20at%20tools.ietf.org>>
> *Cc: *"rtcweb at ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb%20at%20ietf.org>" <rtcweb at 
> ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb%20at%20ietf.org>>
> *Subject: *[rtcweb] Codec Draft
> 
> Hello WebRTC chairs,
> 
> I have updated and submitted a 02 version of the WebRTC Codec draft: 
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01.txt
> 
> I believe that this draft is representative of areas where the
> working group has achieved consensus and at this time I would like to
> ask that the 01 draft be adopted as a working group document.
> 
> I look forward to your feedback.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> *Cary Bran*
> 
> Senior Director Advanced Software Technology and Architecture
> 
> Office:  +1 831-458-7737     Cell: +1 206-661-2398
> 
> *Plantronics*Simply Smarter Communications^(TM)
> 
> 345 Encinal St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, 
> files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain 
> information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you
> are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for
> delivering it to the intended recipient, please DO NOT disclose the
> contents to another person, store or copy the information in any
> medium, or use any of the information contained in or attached to
> this transmission for any purpose. If you have received this
> transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply
> email or at privacy at plantronics.com
> <mailto:privacy%20at%20plantronics.com>, and destroy the original
> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any
> manner.
> 
> For further information about Plantronics - the Company, its
> products, brands, partners, please visit our website
> www.plantronics.com <http://www.plantronics.com>.
> 
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list 
> rtcweb at ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb%20at%20ietf.org> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, 
> files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain 
> information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you
> are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for
> delivering it to the intended recipient, please DO NOT disclose the
> contents to another person, store or copy the information in any
> medium, or use any of the information contained in or attached to
> this transmission for any purpose. If you have received this
> transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply
> email or at privacy at plantronics.com, and destroy the original
> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any
> manner.
> 
> For further information about Plantronics - the Company, its
> products, brands, partners, please visit our website
> www.plantronics.com.
> 
> Rob



-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, COB

Meetecho s.r.l.
Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
http://www.meetecho.com