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

<stephane.proust@orange.com> Wed, 12 November 2014 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.proust@orange.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 A92FD1A883E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 kschIYdPjLbH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B8FE1A87C1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 95EF818C350; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:00:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6FD7E23808D; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:00:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PEXCVZYM14.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a42f:c628:bc76:d592]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:00:41 +0100
From: <stephane.proust@orange.com>
To: 'Adam Roach' <adam@nostrum.com>, "'rtcweb@ietf.org'" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
Thread-Index: AQHP/ItEa9FlPZRQu0qjsNi4+FcSzZxcnUsQ
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:00:40 +0000
Message-ID: <17118_1415779241_546313A9_17118_5052_1_2842AD9A45C83B44B57635FD4831E60A0C1EDAEF@PEXCVZYM14.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.2]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2842AD9A45C83B44B57635FD4831E60A0C1EDAEFPEXCVZYM14corpo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.11.12.65124
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/kPTTN2aaSLCgSf6T3e4SWRyE5X8
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
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: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:00:48 -0000

Considering the time spent on this issue, I could live now with any compromise that would avoid the "no decision" situation.  No decision on video MTI codec at this meeting would be very bad news for the WebRTC technology and for its extended usage in services because of the interoperability issue. Any kind of reasonable "two codecs" compromise like this one would make at least a clear step forward with respect to this interop. issue.  So if it can fly, +1 for myself !

Stéphane

De : rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Adam Roach
Envoyé : lundi 10 novembre 2014 03:08
À : rtcweb@ietf.org
Objet : [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

It appears that we're running headlong into another in-person discussion about the relative merits of H.264 and VP8 as MTI candidates again. Matthew Kaufman has argued that this conversation is doomed to failure because no major player has been willing to change their position. The players he cited were Cisco, Google, and Mozilla, who have represented the three main positions on this topic pretty effectively. Although we participate as individuals in the IETF, I think it's fair to say that the last time we had this conversation, the median positions of participants from those companies were "H.264 or die", "VP8 or die", and "either one as long as it's *only* one", respectively.

However, even if nothing else has changed, I think one salient point may have become quite important: we're all tired of this. Over two years ago, in March of 2012 -- before I even had an particular interest in WebRTC except as a user -- this had already become such a long-running acrimonious debate that I was brought in as a neutral third party to try to mediate. I'm weary of this argument; and, with the exception of a few aggressive voices who seem to enjoy the battle more than the outcome, I'm hearing a similar exhausted timbre in the messages of other participants (and the key stakeholders in particular).

So, I want to float a proposal that represents a compromise, to see if we can finally close this issue. First, I want to start out by reiterating a well-worn observation that the hallmark of a good compromise is that nobody leaves happy, but everyone can force themselves to accept it. And I want to be crystal clear: the solution I'm about to float just barely clears the bar of what I think I can live with. This proposal is based on an observation that the dominating issues in this conversation remain those of licensing, not technology or even incumbency. I’ve discussed this extensively with representatives of all three of the players I mention above, and they are willing to sign on.

This proposal is based on the definitions of "WebRTC User Agent", "WebRTC device", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint" in section 2.2 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-12.txt. My proposal would be as follows:

  1.  WebRTC User Agents MUST implement both VP8 and H.264.
  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.
  3.  WebRTC-compatible endpoints are free to implement any video codecs they see fit, if any (this follows logically from the definition of "WebRTC-compatible endpoint," and doesn't really need to be stated, but I want this proposal to be as explicit as possible).

This has the property of ensuring that all devices and user agents can work with all devices and user agents. This has the property of giving no one exactly what they want. And, unlike any other previous plans, this has the property of coming to a decision while maintaining pressure on the only parties who can make a change in the IPR landscape to do so.

/a

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.