IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof)

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Fri, 13 December 2013 07:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mzanaty@cisco.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 3603E1AE18B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:07:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 wm-dOkCtgF9d for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60EA11AE181 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:07:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=986; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386918470; x=1388128070; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=e+HV+pcGlPKy6YRlkOpDcrp6wF5qrXmoPJSvDLDA2KU=; b=Gd7ZA9/mpEpY6VV8h1yWpebPxguYuwOVU13AHoW8w8Mxr9GqpXQxxdQk Ht5+kJgj9vD54aLuhIDpuNrx6vRF5Xf+SQ5HlTiUJapdYjPl/iN80JvHk WBFDeN6FEwbFGYCy/aXNErQBJAryaHZ2r3yRn5NXH66dwfDDdjAEVPtGz w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAA6xqlKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABZgwo4VbhhgR4WdIIlAQEBBGsOEAIBCBguMiUCBA4FiAQNwlIXjxYHhDYEiQuPCpIUgyqCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,477,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="288301634"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Dec 2013 07:07:49 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBD77ndL029250 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:07:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.19]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 01:07:48 -0600
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof)
Thread-Index: AQHO99IHkYJB/nFCVkKfiFMoJarAeQ==
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:07:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CED0179D.206E2%mzanaty@cisco.com>
References: <20131212011550.GM3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <E8882BCE-4795-4CF5-B785-18C2141A5DE2@iii.ca> <CAD5OKxvy8xGuiR7oUbJJwTaxGfPJ=MHpd8Hp5MfpPLy8LmNaQg@mail.gmail.com> <D5A2C5EC-C65F-4E39-9A56-315B94C5FB1D@iii.ca> <CAD5OKxs-OoqwbQgBy7K4wQRffCk0=8Qmo_xJQdSwhBL2F85v1g@mail.gmail.com> <20131212214310.GR3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CECFA3EA.AC30E%stewe@stewe.org> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0F8739@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <20131213024334.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0F88D6@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <20131213033344.GW3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CECFF758.205FF%mzanaty@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131212214755.0c65acc0@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131212214755.0c65acc0@resistor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.82.253.208]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <1768EA553BFF334381655B4F29CA3D94@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof)
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, 13 Dec 2013 07:07:57 -0000

Yes, I¹m aware of that nuance, strike IETF and just say RFC 6386. There
are nuances on the AVC side as well. It is technically not developed by
MPEG nor ITU, but rather a joint team of video experts (JVT) that still
gets published as ISO/IEC/ITU documents. None of those nuances seem
particularly relevant here. Unless you mean there should really be no IETF
IPR disclosures for VP8 since RFC 6386 is an RFC editor contribution
rather than an IETF contribution. That would be technically true, but I
don¹t think Google or Nokia are breaking IETF process by filing the IPR
declarations, they are just not necessarily compelled to do so under the
current policy.


On 12/13/13, 12:52 AM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:

Hi Mo,
At 21:40 12-12-2013, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
>The confusion here is that the VP8 bitstream is defined in IETF (RFC
>6386). So there are

That RFC is not an IETF document [1].

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6386

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email