Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion

David Singer <> Thu, 14 March 2013 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C494411E80E7 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uBd78YRrF-K4 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3C521F8545 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from ([]) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 ( 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <> for; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807143-b7f896d000006d55-82-5141fe5ea550
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.CF.27989.E5EF1415; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01 ( 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <> for; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Singer <>
In-reply-to: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:44:14 -0700
Message-id: <>
References: <> <>
To: "" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAcpxv3zzHQoOeascXaf+3sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKmNT1iLngPHfFyW/vmBsYV3B2MXJySAiYSKzd0cMOYYtJXLi3 ng3EFhKYyCRx9nxQFyMXkD2TSeLd5heMXYwcHMwCehL3L2qBmLxA5qT9QSDlwgL+Epv3LWQC sdkEVCUezDkGVs0pECxx5k4iiMkCFP49IwakgllAW+LJuwusIDavgI1E27crrFCLGCUmXNkH NkZEQF3i8sMLUJfJSqyY2ss0gZF/FsINsxBumIVk6gJG5lWMAkWpOYmVRnqJBQU5qXrJ+bmb GMFhVei8g/HYMqtDjAIcjEo8vA4PHQOFWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifDu+gsU4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrN SS0+xCjNwaIkzru+wz5QSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwMjbe5BXszI8/cX9twxrmeewnNRK 3njfI6KzOqM7SrngcNwy+3vp+ceyJsjI79XW3fm3u9tt1y6zKjdmVfmskoS999o28GsdERbl 9GGWFlDXfdb+keHl/TPPK42sbjNuO71Gumm7abnp6xvl9Tknpk8xdl/l9uG5xQL59U42F1RL q+TZChsllFiKMxINtZiLihMB+oCayCcCAAA=
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
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, 14 Mar 2013 16:44:15 -0000

On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:24 , Ben Strong <> wrote:

> However, I fail to see how either one of those points has any bearing on the MTI decision. The whole point of MTI is guaranteed interoperability across all WebRTC implementations, which is absolutely critical to WebRTC adoption. The only criteria should be the best quality codec which can be supported by all implementations. And because some implementations are open source, it absolutely must be royalty free.

I think you make a key point here; making a mandate that doesn't have consensus is empty, as if (for example) companies are forced to choose between formally complying with the mandate, or taking on excessive risk, they'll probably be risk-averse. Or a mandate that carries a license fee will be ignored by those who don't pay such fees on principle.

We all need a decision we can all stand behind, and we're making progress to that goal, and I appreciate all the data and efforts.  There is some very important data (notably, the names of the 11 and the resulting license) which is promised to be available in only a few weeks. Let's not decide in haste (and possibly repent at leisure).

By the way, open-source and license fees are not in direct conflict; it's the principles that are.  To pick a directly-relevant example, there are open-source implementations of H.264 (AVC).

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.