[rtcweb] FW: Liaison Statement to IETF (SC 29 N 13820)

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Mon, 04 November 2013 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
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 D512711E81C5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 05:52:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.994
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.994 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.605, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Is438uu+4-N for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 05:52:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0157.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEAC11E8108 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 05:52:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.75.22) by CO1PR07MB362.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.75.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.785.10; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:52:11 +0000
Received: from CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.55]) by CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.167]) with mapi id 15.00.0785.001; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:52:11 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Liaison Statement to IETF (SC 29 N 13820)
Thread-Index: AQHO2TqiDUqWpOHNy0aSyi+svLQLvJoUkX8A
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:52:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CE9CD627.A93D0%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <20131104174700.EE08.544A59DA@itscj.ipsj.or.jp>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [24.5.171.95]
x-forefront-prvs: 0020414413
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(199002)(189002)(377424004)(243025003)(51704005)(24454002)(81686001)(56776001)(54316002)(87266001)(79102001)(81816001)(83072001)(15975445006)(76482001)(15202345003)(59766001)(77982001)(80976001)(50986001)(49866001)(47736001)(19580395003)(66066001)(47976001)(83322001)(19580405001)(36756003)(76786001)(76176001)(56816003)(77096001)(76796001)(31966008)(46102001)(80022001)(81542001)(74662001)(65816001)(74502001)(47446002)(69226001)(63696002)(81342001)(54356001)(4396001)(85306002)(53806001)(51856001)(74876001)(74706001)(74366001)(2656002)(42262001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR07MB362; H:CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:24.5.171.95; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_CE9CD627A93D0stewesteweorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: [rtcweb] FW: Liaison Statement to IETF (SC 29 N 13820)
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:52:20 -0000

Hi rtcweb and Jari,

Jari, please distribute further as you deem necessary, with or without my
notes below.

The attached liaison statement, received from MPEG tonight, is addressed
to the ³IETF² (which is why Jari is copied specifically), but I believe
it¹s mostly if not exclusively rtcweb that is interested.  Note that
MPEG¹s closing plenary was past Friday; this almost sets a record for
turn-around time.

The liaison statement is short and concise, so I do not attempt to
summarize it. 

To put things into perspective (with the caveat that I do not attend most
technical meetings in MPEG, as I¹m busy with JCT-VC), allow me to fill in
some context

IVC is a cleaned-up version of the MPEG-1 video compression technology,
riding the expiration of many of the second generation video coding
patents (MPEG-1 part 2 was ratified in 1993).  WebVC has many similarities
with the Chinese AVS, and both are essentially stripped down versions of
H.264 (baseline) with bug fixes and minor enhancements of known H.264
shortcomings.  VCB is VP8 with an MPEG-style specification and, AFAIK and
so far, compatible with what¹s out as VP8 in the wild.

WebVC is fairly well along the approval process.  Despite the ³good
results² reported, few folks I talk to expect IVC to go anywhere anytime
soon.  Some were expecting that VCB would enter ISO¹s approval process at
this meeting (issue of a Committee Draft, CD), but that also didn¹t happen.

Many on this list are probably more familiar with the IETF¹s and W3C¹s
patent policies than with MPEG¹s, and the additional constraints used in
video coding in MPEG.  So here is a quick primer.  The common ITU/ISO/IEC
patent policy and its associated guidelines require formal, binding IPR
declarations with authorized signature once the spec is stable and its
clear that the patented technology is included, which implies to most that
declarations are expected only towards the end of the approval process.
However, contributors in all three aforementioned projects (though not in
most other MPEG subgroups) are expected make non-binding written
statements in their contributions, similar to what happened in JVT.  There
is also an oral call for IPR at the begin of any MPEG meeting, but that is
boilerplate and the reply is almost always silence.

All three technologies are developed in a relatively small sub-group (a
few dozen people at most) while the majority of video coding experts (the
record was around 350, IIRC) sit in the group known as JCT-VC and work on
H.265.  It is entirely possibly that ³RAND" or even ³unavailable² IPR
declarations will be received for all three standards under development
towards the end of the process, without an early warning by non-binding
written or oral statements in the subgroup.  Those declarations would
AFAIK still be timely, because a) the patent policy guidelines discourage
written IPR declarations to the ISO secretariat before the spec is stable
(something many people associate with the DIS state), b) many companies
interested in video coding do not follow those three projects in detail,
perhaps because they focus on H.265, and c) once the projects are in the
final stages of the approval process, companies may wake up because,
arguably, only then the declaration requirements come into play.  Note
also that, unlike W3C, ISO does not have a formal process to deal with
situations where an unfavorable IPR declaration has been received.  The
policy only sets the requirement that the approved standard does not
include provisions dependent on the unavailable patent.

The common ITU/ISO/IEC patent policy can be found here:
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ipr/Pages/policy.aspx
The guidelines are here:
http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/04/04/T04040000010003PDFE.pdf
(I¹m using the ITU web site as I know where to find things; I¹m sure you
can find identical docs on the ISO site somewhere.)


Regards,
Stephan


 

On 11.4.2013, 00:48 , "WATANABE Shinji" <watanabe@itscj.ipsj.or.jp> wrote:

>Dear Sir or Madam,
>
>In accordance with Resolutions taken
>at the 106th SC 29/WG 11 meeting,
>2013-10-28/11-01, Geneva, Switzerland,
>I am pleased to send attached Liaison statement.
>
>If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
>Best Regards,
>Shinji Watanabe
>
>-----
>WATANABE Shinji (Mr.)
>Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29
>IPSJ/ITSCJ
>308-3 Kikai-Shinko-Kaikan Bldg.
>3-5-8 Shiba-koen, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0011 Japan
>Tel: +81-3-3431-2808 Fax: +81-3-3431-6493
>Mail: watanabe@itscj.ipsj.or.jp