Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

["Bran, Cary" <[e-mail]>]

Many thanks Rob!

I will update the wording and send out the 02 draft to the mailer by end of week.

Cheers,

-Cary

From: Rob Glidden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:10:15 -0800
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Bran, Cary" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

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:[e-mail]>>
  *   To: Stephan Wenger <stewe at stewe.org<mailto:[e-mail]>>
  *   Cc: "rtcweb at ietf.org<mailto:[e-mail]>" <rtcweb at ietf.org<mailto:[e-mail]>>
  *   Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 22:00:26 +0000
  *   References: <E37C139C5CB78244A781E9E7B721527B5485F6 at USSCMB03.plt.plantronics.com<mailto:[e-mail]>> <CAD841DD.330F9%stewe at stewe.org<mailto:[e-mail]>>
  *   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:  [phone]     Cell: [phone]
Plantronics  Simply Smarter Communications™
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<http://www.plantronics.com>.

Rob

________________________________

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 [e-mail], 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.