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

Adam Roach <> Mon, 10 November 2014 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A383C1AC3CD for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:42:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cnY13VG3FLNJ for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 698CF1A9150 for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sAAJgXCY035004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:42:34 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:42:33 -1000
From: Adam Roach <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ron <>,
References: <> <20141110040042.GO8092@hex.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20141110040042.GO8092@hex.shelbyville.oz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 19:42:39 -0000


You are correct in that the IETF doesn't take a position on the validity 
of IPR declarations, and I'd like to thank you for bringing the topic up 
so that I could clarify the proposal. Rather than evaluating the 
*validity* of declarations, we would be evaluating the licensing 
statements associated with those declarations (where applicable).

In terms of what would constitute "compelling evidence", that's going to 
have to be something that the working group (or some successor group, 
depending on timing) comes to consensus around. I believe that examples 
of such situations would include things like "MPEG-LA announces 
non-discriminatory, royalty-free H.264 licensing for WebRTC" or "ISO 
publishes VP8 specification with only Type-1 IPR declarations".

With regards to bad actors' impact on the process, I fear this is an 
unfortunate consequence of international IPR law as it is currently 
defined that we are not in a position to fix. The best we can hope for 
is that the associated parties recognize the goodwill implications of 
standing in the way of progress, and the potential implications of 
developing bad blood between their company and the rest of the standards 

It's not awesome, but it's better than anything else that I've seen 
proposed so far.


On 11/9/14 18:00, Ron wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> I do need to say that I really appreciate the effort you've put into
> trying to help guide this discussion, both previously and now.  You
> speak an uncommon amount of good common sense.
> It's not clear to me exactly how you expect this part to work though:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:08:25PM -1000, Adam Roach wrote:
>> 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.
> What would constitute "compelling evidence" in this context?
> Since the IETF doesn't take any position on the validity of IPR
> declarations, I'm not seeing how the conditional clause here can
> be anything but a no-op that would be essentially impossible to
> trigger.
> There are plenty of proposed standards which have IPR declarations
> made against them, which pretty much everyone who has analysed them
> in any detail agree are utterly bogus and inapplicable, but for
> which the organisation which declared them refuses to withdraw.
> What am I missing that would encourage different behaviour to that
> in this case?
>    Cheers,
>    Ron
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list