IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net> Sat, 17 December 2011 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
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 019CA21F8AD8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:14:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11]
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 73sfSzKZPTQT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:14:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm15.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm15.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.44.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 86C8D21F8AD1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:14:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [98.139.44.107] by nm15.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Dec 2011 19:14:40 -0000
Received: from [98.139.44.71] by tm12.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Dec 2011 19:14:40 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1008.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Dec 2011 19:14:40 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 889992.20271.bm@omp1008.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 49952 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2011 19:14:40 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=VUMrQFRKypOHZ0aWshNU2osUHlQuWSXCBqARDLiB7lofg1D1/tCIL6ykxOlsM5r1K7rpV2mN92hg2sw7YUOISvFy9xf93sYxL3l4p1UFPb9dubEFQ0elz+HcWhuhgkjMMnCMO5hcZnrLhbDSWB01N9k2YrVpcfVk/YYmC5h88/c= ;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1324149280; bh=ixgB9YcVI4SiGLOUh8u9w7NfpkTm6i24WQcjlH1wvJU=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=dT618A/1Ke5mU41VpOx+xuk+nSWqgv1p0n87eYZB7Ib40H5Wc79VhW6CS8EwKq3kgjaopp8bx1mNJ6NwngTUbzQUO8qWmr/sFzUgD7y7hfF5727tLVQoy2kw8+T+uECkZwHmHJ10mnSMmndd/2C88PfuU5IndPIX3GIKqPP7wGE=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: v7gqbe4VM1nUsBlIi2veoOrCAEkDwXIp5ILnmrjUciLdKC7 BJEk6Pl7QcqbMyOicZCVpmcp7_1ul5vP9PmxhU1tQim7Vf9h3t4Kzhe_7z8z ld2wtiS5DW2AR4LxH1KMbQpv3ouOWiGknbGBcm4befJjnjf3kPyskPM_25sb Mzaa0XvjDa6RQ63zSjsA3_a8rvE9.WQ9jJ7R8dZAkbK0_dJOh8xHbjRxwSpA SRQfd_U0lav_0HHj85z2xiRYcE2OzG952r4T3b1eAM6PTHSde86GAkhGiQvI ErQFfh8RrIGcEjMDmF.giU1Yl.krZ5u5diWZ6bVxVCs4CQUEnJYNh14hPyQv jZisP2Il4bmrRDAZInhhj9lMLGtJ6yVD14i69bjorz4vjy.T40ArFpTKMUmo W.IBddATnxhrQKpZ_S_1Pxo8T385iODt.v_F1Y2SPM5LmadXphviFJiVAhPb o.kOOM0JgDGGo2aviSn18eh89Xw.Dj1cbOS3GXvMTVbgfoI8QxLx_YPHHAAy i5Y8sBuX12Rw-
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xflwSnaswBCuS46GvTyhPI4RUJpgPG5UXouB5Vxqo4t9fsHeH0I-
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (rob.glidden@68.124.176.83 with plain) by smtp107.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Dec 2011 11:14:40 -0800 PST
Message-ID: <4EECEA08.5050300@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:14:16 -0800
From: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Blizzard <blizzard@mozilla.com>
References: <746276993.96103.1324085707648.JavaMail.root@zimbra1.shared.sjc1.mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <746276993.96103.1324085707648.JavaMail.root@zimbra1.shared.sjc1.mozilla.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, Cary Bran <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: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:14:44 -0000

Chris:

No, not at all, I'm saying something altogether different: I am saying 
all these kinds of characterizations supporting old text, however 
framed, cast wrong procedural net, for multiple reasons.

Proposed new text is straightforward and should be unobjectionable:

"The REQUIRED video codec should 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."

Rob

On 12/16/2011 5:35 PM, Chris Blizzard wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rob Glidden"<rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
>> To: "Chris Blizzard"<blizzard@mozilla.com>
>> Cc: "Harald Alvestrand"<harald@alvestrand.no>, rtcweb@ietf.org, "Cary Bran"<Cary.Bran@plantronics.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:45:59 AM
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
>> Chris:
>>
>> "MPEG-LA-is-a-monopolist" characterization casts wrong procedural net,
>> among reasons pending lawsuits -- one more reason to be accurate and
>> follow procedure.
>>
> Sorry for the follow-up, but just to be clear, this is not what I said.  What I said is this:
>
>>> To get at the heart of the issue, I think that many people would
>>> like to use H.264 support as the default. It's lower-friction and
>>> widely deployed. But that's entirely up to the rights holders for
>>> that technology. That's why there's a date and a specific call-out
>>> to MPEG LA as the monopoly rights holder in the text. It's up to
>>> them to decide, and they have three months from tomorrow to do so.
>>>
>>> --Chris
>>>
> MPEG LA is the monopoly licensor for H.264.  Patents are legal government-sponsored monopolies and they license many of the patents for that technology.  (Although they clearly disallow the assertion that they have all of them via their license!)  "Monopolist" as you put it has a somewhat criminal tone in normal usage and would be the result of their actions with that monopoly in place.  I want to be clear that I did not mean that and that's your interpretation, not mine.
>
> --Chris
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email