Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

David Singer <> Fri, 05 December 2014 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765921AD585 for <>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:11:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g6g_vFMdTQYf for <>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 213931AD584 for <>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:11:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt;; t=1417806691; x=2281720291; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=j7ROv8CNd85pASnIYbN+KfvI6VuKsdha6Js4sTjYFoo=; b=YeEaP9lPmusWbrlb1JRZrUP1L1c2DA3/y9U/g3XZbavIoXCvxfTDRXiYruQB3vy+ qQgMVcD4MQG5pI1t4GlJ4rY0ePo4bAD8lcy3/I1Nznsdo6DZkNJU3ZVLLzDpSHUA fTDajCAtEmMQX9Kyol9RCyf/FhelgE4AyDQRSl8bWQGCntT7aUIJsbCP/PpmIB+6 MDc3nEZwowO2dG8wpsDxM9nBGiI5GeKVrZA+AAoi++PMNbjHOJ7ZF/JAF4CagZKV ZqrpQyTZPoaiDNc6m/yo5CT4Wbq/5pWr5m7A6IprZr4OtasghkKr0pD9m7xeepYW d5K0XHjX9AvWXxz7Mo0FCg==;
Received: from ( []) by (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id 0B.3A.06819.36302845; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:11:31 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11973e13-f79656d000001aa3-61-5482036300b4
Received: from ( []) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 07.5B.05858.D5302845; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 64bit (built Oct 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <> for; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: David Singer <>
In-reply-to: <20141205035706.GB21150@hex.shelbyville.oz>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:11:30 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20141205035706.GB21150@hex.shelbyville.oz>
To: Ron <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FDorJvM3BRiMPWkgcXaf+3sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK2PP5IXvBbNGKoyvPMjcwtgl2MXJySAiYSDxaeo8NwhaTuHBv PZDNxSEksJdR4umXRiaYomeLr7NAJCYxSTz9epkVwpnPJPFzZztQhoODWUBdYsqUXJAGXgE9 iaYnj8GahQUiJI50nmEHsdkEVCUezDnGCGJzClhIPP9wmxXEZgGKv377DqyeWUBY4vvjeywQ trbEk3cXWCFm2kj8/7+bCWLvYSaJZZemgA0VEZCQePP+MTPEpbIS/y6CLOMCst+ySjQc+sg6 gVF4FsJ9s5DcNwvJjgWMzKsYhXITM3N0M/NM9RILCnJS9ZLzczcxggJ5up3wDsbTq6wOMQpw MCrx8K6QaAwRYk0sK67MPcQozcGiJM77jhcoJJCeWJKanZpakFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgTF1 9Ylz6br7jk9ccHT99D32hUlFpv6JfNpVv/hWOiRsZrm+7cTcU3ntO96nnjXu2H9io8SiCNbr F1Qzltd+TqtZeDXLhD9ffsGLvax5v6MSDLsPRD1Z5Kl6u4t/Mg/zcbZQ32+7LfwebjnKlrFI 0MtuS9qkCyFtYjU/9oT2CzjMkM4pSq/v2qPEUpyRaKjFXFScCADuVOXLRQIAAA==
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FDcohvL3BRisG2vpsXaf+3sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK2PP5IXvBbNGKoyvPMjcwtgl2MXJySAiYSDxbfJ0FwhaTuHBv PVsXIxeHkMAkJomnXy+zQjjzmSR+7mwHquLgYBZQl5gyJRekgVdAT6LpyWMmEFtYIELiSOcZ dhCbTUBV4sGcY4wgNqeAhcTzD7dZQWwWoPjrt+/A6pkFhCW+P77HAmFrSzx5d4EVYqaNxP// u5kg9h5mklh2aQrYUBEBCYk37x8zQ1wqK/Hv4hn2CYwCsxBOmoXkpFlIxi5gZF7FKFCUmpNY aaSXWFCQk6qXnJ+7iREceIXOOxiPLbM6xCjAwajEw7tCojFEiDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkghv8myg EG9KYmVValF+fFFpTmrxIUZpDhYlcd6cd0ApgfTEktTs1NSC1CKYLBMHp1QDI5sm/6yc/tdb d648/mvRwy9HxF5xBDyJmiQ533KFvn6fydY3fEFqQgJynhIFVuvDmD3mcWZ47reocJHrathv +OvxXi99mzXHJ/I9uR5V4rzE7rXvw812HWsj5/VsMelpyj7tphD+MzH37MQyBXmjWL0DylmC u7jKFzLdan3qX/6jdOVt3oYMJZbijERDLeai4kQAiYZF0DgCAAA=
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:11:35 -0000

> On Dec 4, 2014, at 19:57 , Ron <> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 02:03:44PM -0800, David Singer wrote:
>>> On Dec 4, 2014, at 13:59 , Iñaki Baz Castillo <> wrote:
>>> 2014-12-03 19:33 GMT+01:00 David Singer <>om>:
>>>> As I understand it, the recent face to face meeting decided to draft the requirement that WebRTC browsers be required to implement both VP8 and H.264, and get feedback on this, on the list.
>>>> This is some feedback.
>>> I've been searching in both the rtcweb and public-webrtc mailing
>>> lists, and must say that it is VERY SAD that the only "contribution"
>>> and "feedback" received from Apple are these regarding "MTI codecs",
>>> nothing else.
>>> I hope Apple has better things to do than sending FUD to working
>>> groups in which they have no interest.
>> I apologize for both the fact that you think this is FUD, and for the lack of other engagement.
>> Quite where you see the uncertainty and doubt in the “you MUST
>> implement something which, it is stated, is subject to IPR which
>> CANNOT be licensed”, I am less sure.  Fear, yes, I get that.
> Are you seriously suggesting that the due diligence which Google's
> team did prior to the acquisition of On2 and the VP8 IP was so
> completely incompetent that they "somehow missed" the barnload of
> random claims that Nokia have belatedly asserted here as a last
> scorched earth defence after all other lines of sophistry were
> apparently failing dismally?

I love your colorful language. I might think that it optimistic to think one could develop a motion-estimating, DCT-based, entropy-coded, codec — one that is in direct family from H.261 and MPEG-2 onwards — and avoid all the IPR. But your colorful language and happy faith in these engineers, and others’ skepticism, are both beside the point.

There is a formal notice from a company that they believe they hold IPR and they are unwilling to license. You and I can dislike the situation, dislike patent law, dislike the procedures, or anything else, as much as we wish, it doesn’t change them.

For the IETF to insert a MUST into a specification it is instructing companies, based on no visible analysis, and (unfortunately, since the German case closed without a clear answer) no formal judgment, to defy the claim and risk suit. That is clearly formally inappropriate.  The most we should do is to use a term from RFC 6919 (I’d suggest sections 1 or 6).

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.