Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <> Thu, 15 December 2011 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C08321F85FF for <>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:09:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.307
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FvYkvxoqlZVK for <>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:09:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C116321F8591 for <>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:09:54 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,359,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="245158851"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Dec 2011 14:09:53 -0500
X-UNC-Auth-As: tterribe
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBFJ9nVq017985 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:09:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:09:49 -0800
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101120 Gentoo/2.0.10 SeaMonkey/2.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:09:55 -0000

> Really is the language below so objectionable? It is straightforward and
> constructive.


> "The REQUIRED video codec should be a royalty-free codec which has been
> specified by a recognized standards process such as MPEG or other
> due-process standards group and provide reviewable substantiation of its
> royalty-free status."

This shouldn't be the bar for picking a codec, and hasn't been the bar 
even for those of us who strongly advocate for RF formats. Neither MPEG 
nor anyone else has ever publicly provided such "reviewable 
substantiation" of the complete IPR status of any codec, and even MPEG 
LA specifically disclaims any implication that they provide a license to 
all patents necessary to implement their formats.

What actually matters is, are people willing to ship it? So far there's 
no evidence that the conditions you want to impose are even sufficient 
to get all browser vendors to ship a single codec, much less necssary.