Re: [rtcweb] H.261
Ron <ron@debian.org> Fri, 22 November 2013 19:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
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 E4A8E1AE26D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:26:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 CpKP_8tGbQFn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:26:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38271AE1C2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp14-2-50-7.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.50.7]) by ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 23 Nov 2013 05:56:45 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9409D4F8F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 05:56:42 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id YGSQl0838B40 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 05:56:41 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 85E1F4F902; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 05:56:41 +1030 (CST)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 05:56:41 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20131122192641.GZ3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66AF@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66AF@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
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, 22 Nov 2013 19:26:57 -0000
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:23:02AM -0600, Stefan Slivinski wrote: > You are not going to avoid patent issues with H.261. Even if all patents > associated with the H.261 specification have expired you are going to run > into generic video patents around motion estimation or rate distortion and > many, many other areas that have not. At the end of the day, if a patent > troll sees you have money, they are going to find a way to sue you. You keep repeating this, but it's not clear to me what you are actually arguing here? Are you saying that the concerns of the VP8 objectors are irrelevant since the only confirmed relevant IP is freely licenced (just like H.261 now is), and that we should use it instead? For the people who can't use H.264, the problem is intractable, unless the holders of its patents revise their licence terms, or until they also expire. For the people who say they can't use VP8, the problem is much as you describe, "maybe some mugger will spring out of the hedges", despite the protections provided by its licencing. There seems to be general agreement that the patent risk of H.261 is no greater than for *any* other technology that will go into this standard (will you be allowed to establish a connection with one click?) and that its age provides a certain amount of shelter an implementor could cower under should that be their best choice. When was the last time you heard Stephan agree that some technology was fairly sure to be unencumbered ;? I rest my case ... The interesting question that remains is do we have consensus that the patent risk of MPEG1 is equally minimal (or will be by the time there are implementations of WebRTC using it out in the wild and/or this standard is ratified). If we do, then it remains an option for the MTI video codec. If there is consensus that the fear of it is too great to expose people to, then we only have one "safe" choice left for us to consider that addresses the concerns of those objecting to VP8, and has none of the problems of H.264. As I said right after the last meeting, I think we're still a long way from having exhausted the normal IETF consensus procedures on this question - though we do seem to be at the point where most people now realise their most preferred codec option is going to be steadfastly prevented from achieving consensus by the objections of others. And so we again basically only have 2 options: - Those objections are rejected as vexatious by the chairs and we find that we do have consensus on one of the original preferences. [1] - Those objections are upheld as valid consensus blockers by the chairs, and we need to look at other solutions which address them. The latter is what the people proposing H.261 are directly addressing. I'm not sure which part of that you find confusing. Ron [1] - which would seem to be difficult, assuming they both like their role in the IETF and like it to remain uncontroversial, and like the job they have with their present employers :)
- [rtcweb] H.261 Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Steve Kann
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 bryandonnovan
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 bryandonnovan
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Steve Kann
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- [rtcweb] Opinions are fine, bypassing a vote is n… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Opinions are fine, bypassing a vote … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 bryandonnovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Opinions are fine, bypassing a vote … Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Opinions are fine, bypassing a vote … Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 - taking a longer view of thin… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 - taking a longer view of thin… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 - taking a longer view of thin… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 - taking a longer view of thin… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Florian Weimer
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Florian Weimer
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 - taking a longer view of thin… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Opinions are fine, bypassing a vote … cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 - taking a longer view of thin… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Hrishikesh Kulkarni
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Hrishikesh Kulkarni
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Engel Nyst
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] H.261 Randell Jesup