Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

Mohammed Raad <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com> Fri, 14 November 2014 05:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mohammedsraad@raadtech.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 1B4141A7011 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:49:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 IgEIsUbaqcj3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E5BF1A6FFB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id n3so4088450wiv.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:49:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mcD3JAy2u0cmuNoYf7zbf9meDyPFx2dPag3rXLkCvo4=; b=j1D3setJYlfEAx8QgcDFSWiLBh3bj84tZVWT/YPKKudgLmOCVIDj/uqDpIam9Ytmpt F4kJLQGsECccCjJhWV44gzOBfKN4UMn6MsKcX6hldo8YJtF1eNmp55+0Ed1SZeOXmASq liMI9UKwLO/APhJeuP+GaN1YQ76KaCx8FORtXYmf1VZjuJwzkvGjhI7ShtMOP8r6MGw+ mmc3z0+mUsjX84aisoaWWUyQyKQ2Pi2i4T1fgHKKpgVJA4032pVrPADCiZih1v88Tl8V b4r4KAUB8AN1mzHeuEUVPFGXV6NsIihzq2kRtaHP4BJszityCJKZaYLHd9wyZBEDxhJA Stgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkTaazfaphmRgpS3LkTW48EcF4QVsUXi3CLCyqHbAj2z4fiWJjCsl/g+Zx2JEdFIXA1yDS
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.78.234 with SMTP id e10mr4527065wix.32.1415944167414; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.152.169 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.152.169 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:49:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <19c4eaabf2e9420c833f86a2ab0f9bdb@NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com>
References: <544117FB.6050706@alvestrand.no> <CAHgZEq6GTk5ei+LLpWPM5povpieompD66VU9F+u7--WJVgapaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+23+fGWnWd0QEeCmZ=6BmJkPrUVW6cZ0jwmXA+fM88=_+_NWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dugTtfLhk0VuJOk7OPEonGBApMjY93EZocH90RbX6X22w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHgZEq5t4-Cot9XkU_pfyfi0TBCUxfT79ZvpiLW=X5_KUQh5dA@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0ck_VtMnf6740rh0ku1Qct7s-xrJEfokg6oufEi4wgrYAw@mail.gmail.com> <D069AC57.49A8E%stewe@stewe.org> <D06D5403.49D1D%stewe@stewe.org> <544AE196.6080907@nostrum.com> <5a86546928b841e9b063354de2aa279d@NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com> <20141114024252.GD10827@hex.shelbyville.oz> <19c4eaabf2e9420c833f86a2ab0f9bdb@NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:49:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+E6M0=2tH_WJj0j6wPC0PpS+fSRTPkh=AazrofqMsn6XojSRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mohammed Raad <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com>
To: markus.isomaki@nokia.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043be1d21ef42d0507cb314b
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/fzkhTJOERyMIDaL4f_n-TQDNrXk
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
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: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 05:49:32 -0000

Markus,

Nokia made no technical contributions to VCB (the MPEG name for the VP8
compatible standard under development). Nokia had plenty of opportunities
to do so. Google had even suggested to MPEG a technical criteria for
accepting new technology into VCB. Nokia could have taken the initiative
and made a technical contribution to at least test that offer. Instead
Nokia sent us a patent declaration that said Nokia would not license it's
patents reading on VCB without telling MPEG which patents the Nokia people
think read on VCB. How you consider this a defence of open standards
development is beyond me.

The funny thing is that it was Nokia people pushing for more challenging
visual tests at MPEG for VCB. Well, we know how that turned out.

Mohammed
On 14 Nov 2014 05:12, <markus.isomaki@nokia.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ron wrote:
> >
> > >There has been some criticism over how Opus was developed too,
> > > but it was certainly a much more open and collaborative model than
> > > what has happened with VP8 in MPEG.
> >
> > Was that "criticism" made in public somewhere, ...
> >
> >...
> >
> > If my memory is simply failing me, I'd welcome some pointers to things
> which
> > back up your claims here to refresh it.
> >
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-videocodec-7.pdf
>
> (But I don't think we should continue this discussion at RTCWEB list. The
> point was not to bash the Opus process, on the contrary.)
>
> Markus
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>