IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Draft agenda for RTCWeb session 2 at IETF85

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 23 October 2012 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722ED1F0C86 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.259
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.259 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.339, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tarSohxyrc1U for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s34.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s34.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66D921F84C5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU002-W44 ([65.55.111.137]) by blu0-omc4-s34.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:33:30 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU002-W44FADB2B38492BA77CBFF393790@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_1f65d363-6809-4b73-beaf-11e0a248ed8f_"
X-Originating-IP: [72.11.69.66]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:33:29 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20121022224857.GU6812@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <5082DE08.5040007@matthew.at>, <20121021210147.GR6812@audi.shelbyville.oz>, <5084C273.4070706@matthew.at>, <20121022224857.GU6812@audi.shelbyville.oz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Oct 2012 02:33:30.0156 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9EFC6C0:01CDB0C6]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Draft agenda for RTCWeb session 2 at IETF85
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:33:32 -0000

Ron said: 
> If the cost of simply tracking all those users didn't bankrupt me all
> by itself, then the licence fees certainly would try to finish the job.

[BA]  Pardon me if I'm obtuse, but I'd like to better understand the situation that is resulting in your being concerned about having to pay license fees and track users. 

Are you developing HTML5 applications?  f so, are you envisaging that as an HTML5 developer writing a WebRTC application for a browser that supports H.264 you would need to pay licensing fees? 

Are you working for a browser vendor?  If so, are you envisaging that you would need to pay licensing fees based on the number of users of your browser? 

Are you a developer of applications looking to interoperate with WebRTC?  If so, are you calling APIs that enable you to use the H.264 implementation in the OS platform, or accessing the hardware encode/decode functionality (available on most SoC platforms)?  If so, do you believe that you need to pay license fees? 

Or do you primarily develop on platforms without H.264 support in the OS, and on hardware with no H.264 encode/decode support?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email