Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Steve Kann <stevek@stevek.com> Sat, 23 November 2013 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <stevek@stevek.com>
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 CD7C01AE2C3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:09:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 s1sZ1JV2xPWl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:09:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-f46.google.com (mail-qe0-f46.google.com [209.85.128.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62E41AE2B1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:09:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f46.google.com with SMTP id a11so1588638qen.33 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:09:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=Wk0Yj4Or0j9kQX2+aG05YoQ4HM3wkat8QhcUUnqmNLY=; b=iqv2wPNMpswhixXt8G1fJvsdHXJL1NjzC8lAUfyd6JBvkVgGA+8a0T9lUQ/wHY1H6m B9t+ftP4SDBhBtShbRzCVWf1Fewd/3lXRfEkeOQidbDTILg3YrcPYzokQdwaOtWnWo40 4XsDoYjbz4gKPwEHDppgHnqK0BIV+4zmvEFJwvcW+a/WOnZbRESJR6bZeLLWM89Jygtx HKk7zbDjIyudDA1hMfoOLYI0gkqkn/3Ci33DKDmtu1JOJNq5a+HaP8Rvl1EQnZkx2XBg dbtAfxnTTBsZlR2HQE98qhhhxoVZjHwHI+9hGaF/5MTZF4RoZdZdYihxlUETpf0M4QAO gCbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmgIacJa0dJD3pmg4r2ITkWD/DLZspywsPLuDcvktEC6qRmE9TaVTjMFQRJGUDbfZjcuRjH
X-Received: by 10.49.27.8 with SMTP id p8mr913709qeg.64.1385168981121; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:09:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.19.53.130] (mobile-198-228-195-139.mycingular.net. [198.228.195.139]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b10sm3340599qeg.7.2013.11.22.17.09.40 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:09:40 -0800 (PST)
References: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66DE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FAAA8.8060807@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66FE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FB79F.8090405@gmail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E670F@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FBD13.5040801@gmail.com> <528FD429.7090002@nostrum.com> <528FDE5E.5080301@librevideo.org> <CE523335-0146-4FA5-A735-1EB4A8B3F1EF@apple.com> <teuv891bfb8k2pn7rj8etlbbnqvckf500j@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <teuv891bfb8k2pn7rj8etlbbnqvckf500j@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35BA0144-C4F5-4E1A-B791-C6C1511F0B88@stevek.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a)
From: Steve Kann <stevek@stevek.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:09:40 -0500
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:09:51 -0000

We keep tailing about this 100k cap as if there are no additional obligations on folks:

- they still need to define what units mean and count them (problem well described in recent posts)
- even in the situation below (compile by user, etc) In order to be covered by the 100k minimum, you still need to count and also submit to a quarterly reporting requirement.

So this sounds great:  
- you distribute your product in source form. 
- you ask your users to compile it on their own ( I'm guessing automating this might be problematic)
- you ask your users to request and complete paperwork with MPEG-LA, and submit to quarterly reporting requirements. 

Sounds fantastic for those guys. Imagine that this was required for tcp-Reno?

Anyway, I think we should establish a consensus call requesting we don't talk about h.264-only or vp8-only MTI options. I think we can find consensus that unless something significant changes (and Cisco's openh264 action was significant but insufficient), that we will not get consensus there.   I don't know how procedure works, but I think we all just need to accept and move on. 



-Sent from an iOS mobile device

> On Nov 22, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> * David Singer wrote:
>> Curiously, I think that the position is that if you distribute source 
>> (e.g. of FFMPeg, X264) then the person who compiles it is making the 
>> final product, so if everyone builds it themselves, they are in a 
>> product distribution group size of 1.
> 
> I trust MPEG-LA just HATES this one weird trick...
> -- 
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb