Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Mon, 10 November 2014 20:57 UTC
Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
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 E35BB1AC3A2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:57:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 GkfsyHX-zw6b for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB44C1ACDF2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:57:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id p9so3363307lbv.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:57:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Rlf/96VqIud+ay4lS9k1Vu8faMjlL8j5+G4EjkwtY88=; b=yP6DK6LpDSo3rq3M0XICNoOzgEsgeN0Vbic5q7e/a0MSqbY4AqJFcmTv7bMaVb38aO Iawd4sPt7TubqSs9nNPqc72ghvSOqHNcrpOSKoZWdcwU6d+omlf86RtHXKbHoyRZKmwv m7PQhDtW5DPBhVBqLRckJPCXRP8q9U2IJOXpylTd2ycb1XZ8svOVziMKKLdHQeyfZOnn 5eRHSjJWa2I8xfTnQW8/EzK0jYOxNpTUHr62XT8Z1WG6et8BqmABJeuDL6Q7fVpebC0a 51Ap03BZ0JSCCZ13A/C+llM9gy88YC3Qb8HQCrqYBDfQc9n7NZCNMFVzTtDY8MnYCjIn ifxQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.204.230 with SMTP id lb6mr19519295lac.35.1415653049265; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.42.134 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:57:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com>
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:57:29 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN6mVsz_98jbKwy_YR_Pkb2ZTqq=QojnXiSHZ4E_OgQj9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134d87020750b05078769e3"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/bFXICGGsZ6EX4r6DJ3HUh7tfkdg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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 20:57:35 -0000
I agree with the proposal - I think this is as close as we will ever get on an agreed way forward. Regards, Mary. On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > It appears that we're running headlong into another in-person discussion > about the relative merits of H.264 and VP8 as MTI candidates again. Matthew > Kaufman has argued that this conversation is doomed to failure because no > major player has been willing to change their position. The players he > cited were Cisco, Google, and Mozilla, who have represented the three main > positions on this topic pretty effectively. Although we participate as > individuals in the IETF, I think it's fair to say that the last time we had > this conversation, the median positions of participants from those > companies were "H.264 or die", "VP8 or die", and "either one as long as > it's *only* one", respectively. > > However, even if nothing else has changed, I think one salient point may > have become quite important: we're all tired of this. Over two years ago, > in March of 2012 -- before I even had an particular interest in WebRTC > except as a user -- this had already become such a long-running acrimonious > debate that I was brought in as a neutral third party to try to mediate. > I'm weary of this argument; and, with the exception of a few aggressive > voices who seem to enjoy the battle more than the outcome, I'm hearing a > similar exhausted timbre in the messages of other participants (and the key > stakeholders in particular). > > So, I want to float a proposal that represents a compromise, to see if we > can finally close this issue. First, I want to start out by reiterating a > well-worn observation that the hallmark of a good compromise is that nobody > leaves happy, but everyone can force themselves to accept it. And I want to > be crystal clear: the solution I'm about to float just barely clears the > bar of what I think I can live with. This proposal is based on an > observation that the dominating issues in this conversation remain those of > licensing, not technology or even incumbency. I’ve discussed this > extensively with representatives of all three of the players I mention > above, and they are willing to sign on. > > This proposal is based on the definitions of "WebRTC User Agent", "WebRTC > device", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint" in section 2.2 of > draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-12.txt. My proposal would be as follows: > > > 1. WebRTC User Agents MUST implement both VP8 and H.264. > > 2. WebRTC devices MUST implement both VP8 and H.264. 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. For absolute, > crystal clarity, this provision is only applicable to WebRTC devices, and > not to WebRTC User Agents. > > 3. WebRTC-compatible endpoints are free to implement any video codecs > they see fit, if any (this follows logically from the definition of > "WebRTC-compatible endpoint," and doesn't really need to be stated, but I > want this proposal to be as explicit as possible). > > > This has the property of ensuring that all devices and user agents can > work with all devices and user agents. This has the property of giving no > one exactly what they want. And, unlike any other previous plans, this has > the property of coming to a decision while maintaining pressure on the only > parties who can make a change in the IPR landscape to do so. > > /a > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > >
- [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