Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

Hi,

On 10/19/14, 9:15 AM, "Watson Ladd" <watsonbladd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Alexandre GOUAILLARD
><agouaillard@gmail.com> wrote:
>> @jonathan,
>>
>> while you are right and availability of 264 implementation or hardware
>> acceleration has improved, it has never been reported as a problem in
>>the
>> previous pool by anyone. The 264 royalties, and the VP8 IP risks were,
>> AFAIR, the main reasons used by individuals to justify their positions.
>> Today, nothing has changed with respect to those two items (even though
>> providing open264 royalties and absorbing the license cost for some
>> platforms might have been a set in the right direction). This is why I
>>think
>> the conditions are not met for a consensus to be reached.
>
>But now VP8 is going through ISO,

... and is is DIS ballot.  Few projects in ISO get stopped at that stage.
To me, it¹s pretty clear that VP8 will have an ISO/IEC blessing within a
year or two.  Without substantial technical changes.  Given the very
limited participation in the relevant subgroup in MPEG, it¹s unclear to me
what good that will do, though.

>and the people claiming patents on
>VP8 have had time to sue, and haven't.

That¹s factually incorrect.  To the best of my knowledge, what would be
factually correct is this: in two cases, companies have been sued over
patents allegedly reading on VP8 in the context of the wider ³smartphone
wars² lawsuits, and the defendants have won non-infringement rulings in
the first instance (though, last I looked, appeals were pending in both
cases).  At least one other case was settled on undisclosed terms.  Some
of these cases were widely reported in the press, others are a little bit
harder to find without access to legal search tools.

>That's evidence that some
>concerns are overblown.

And that depends on your viewpoint.

Stephan

>
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Bernard Aboba
>><bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "And its one of the issues holding up wider adoption of the technology"
>>>
>>> [BA] Specifying an MTI encoder/decoder is not sufficient for
>>> interoperability.  It is also necessary to specify the transport in
>>>enough
>>> detail to allow independent implementations that interoperate well
>>>enough to
>>> be usable in a wide variety of scenarios, including wireless networks
>>>where
>>> loss is commonly experienced.
>>>
>>> We made the mistake of having an MTI discussion previously with not
>>>enough
>>> details on that subject, particularly with respect to H.264.
>>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-video sections 4.2 - 4.4 remain sketchy at best.
>>>
>>> So if we are to have the discussion again, it should occur in the
>>>context
>>> of detailed specifications and interoperability reports.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg
>>><jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm in favor of taking another run at this.
>>>>
>>>> The working group has repeatedly said that an MTI codec is something
>>>>we
>>>> need to produce. And its one of the issues holding up wider adoption
>>>>of the
>>>> technology (not the only one for sure).
>>>>
>>>> And things have changed since the last meeting, a year ago now
>>>>(November
>>>> in Vancouver). Cisco's open264 plugin shipped and now just recently is
>>>> integrated into Firefox. iOS8 shipped with APIs for H264. There are
>>>>other
>>>> things worth noting. Will this change the minds of everyone? Surely
>>>>not.
>>>> Will it sway enough for us to achieve rough consensus? Maybe. IMHO -
>>>>worth
>>>> finding out.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alexandre GOUAILLARD
>>>> <agouaillard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to not having MTI codec discussion unless some progress has been
>>>>>made
>>>>> on VP8 at MPEG. Any news on that? I'm sharing harald's  feeling that
>>>>>there
>>>>> was no change on the members position.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Harald Alvestrand
>>>>> <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/17/2014 12:02 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing we could do instead of wasting time on MTI is to actually
>>>>>>> make progress on Sections 4.2 - 4.4 of draft-IETF-RTCWEB-video, so
>>>>>>>we could
>>>>>>> actually interoperate regardless of the codec.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The big argument for an MTI is actually the one stated in
>>>>>>-overview: It
>>>>>> guards against interoperability failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to have an ecosystem where one can field a box,
>>>>>>connect it
>>>>>> to everything else, and run well for *some* level of "well" - and I
>>>>>>would
>>>>>> prefer that ecosystem to be one where it's possible to field the
>>>>>>box without
>>>>>> making prior arrangements with anyone about licenses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This argument hasn't changed one whit since last time we discussed
>>>>>>it.
>>>>>> And I don't see much movement on the specifics of the proposals
>>>>>>either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll have to interoperate well with the codecs we field. So using
>>>>>>some
>>>>>> time to discuss draft-ietf-rtcweb-video seems to make sense. (And
>>>>>>4.1 isn't
>>>>>> finished either. There's one sentence that needs to be removed.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't say I'd be happy to not discuss this in Honolulu. But I'd
>>>>>> prefer to re-discuss based on the knowledge that some significant
>>>>>>players
>>>>>> have actually changed their minds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the moment, I don't see signs that any of the poll respondents
>>>>>>have
>>>>>> said "I have changed my mind".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harald
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Martin Thomson
>>>>>>>> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And that's because something substantive has changed, or simply
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> wasting the WG time on this again is more entertaining than
>>>>>>>>>actually
>>>>>>>>> finishing a specification that can be independently implemented
>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> browser vendors? (A specification that we are nowhere near
>>>>>>>>>having,
>>>>>>>>> as far as
>>>>>>>>> I can tell)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I've found the reprieve from this fight refreshing.
>>>>>>>>And
>>>>>>>> it would appear that we've made some real progress as a result.
>>>>>>>>I'd
>>>>>>>> suggest that if we don't have new information, we continue to
>>>>>>>>spend
>>>>>>>> our time productively.  If we can't find topics to occupy our
>>>>>>>>meeting
>>>>>>>> agenda time, then maybe we can free an agenda slot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>>>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>--------------
>>>>> CTO - Temasys Communications, S'pore / Mountain View
>>>>> President - CoSMo Software, Cambridge, MA
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>--------------
>>>>> sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
>>>> jdrosen@jdrosen.net
>>>> http://www.jdrosen.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
>> 
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-----------
>> CTO - Temasys Communications, S'pore / Mountain View
>> President - CoSMo Software, Cambridge, MA
>> 
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-----------
>> sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
>Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
>-- Benjamin Franklin
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb