Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF3211E8189 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id egF33ZGefX5I for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8F221F9CF7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id aq17so4492467iec.34 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bTbm8U+/3B3QOnVACcI/b6p3LFijY4vpvtI8+VdPQBo=; b=C/ozxpT4K1EFo4V9aIEeAkZT6rLdASHHvyhwPq/aFr7epXSJb9YjPJuSwlvcOicgIF PiJbkvDzKGk83dKzQH2kVIo79NLAlULVncqwPIL3r7hT8uf52FXrzuYEW4zy9fLnEX99 rnYy8yB94oMVAEZHuw2ArfL4n2S7BArUHde0OAQTJUb0wmSh/Mh0Jc8nWaXiD2VwNsD5 Pregbdqg8t7v14ZOO7RCxeHK8hizaAkybbiao1U2vXXQ+N0P8sx6R9QeVC0wgNULnN+a w0qBc1456XSvo6u5AqlmOOM3i71LKUUtQGONadCcT0EtR8aH89EnQfVxb8LDNsmGEk+f Se+A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.120.10 with SMTP id ky10mr2487707igb.29.1382633996276; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.29.202 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4843D45DC08@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <526826AF.5030308@librevideo.org> <52690090.2050609@alvestrand.no> <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD683@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4843D45DC08@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:59:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMD0yX7ZUqUt8FjtR4TKUdhbS8mzK3+i4ikEQvU0meOAsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba9823233e95b04e97f90d6
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:00:05 -0000

Hi Matthew,

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <
matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:

>  On the IPR issue, Google reached agreement with 11 patent holders. There
> are at least 31 companies in the MPEG-LA H.264 pool. There is considerable
> technical overlap between VP8 and H.264.****
>
> ** **
>
> My employer is one of those in the H.264 pool, and wasn’t one of the 11
> companies Google reached an agreement with.****
>
> ** **
>
> Draw your own conclusions and take your own IPR risks.****
>
> **
>

If you would like to make an IPR declaration according to the IETF
IPR process, the form is available here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-specific/

If you would prefer to email one, ietf-ipr@ietf.org is the correct email
address.
Statements of the form above to WG mailing lists do not appear to me qualify
as IPR statements in  the IETF IPR process, at least as I understand it.

regards,

Ted Hardie




> **
>
> Personally I’d rather the IPR devil I know vs. the IPR devil I don’t know.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Google could fix this for most potential users (through indemnification,
> similar to what Oracle offers its Linux licensees) but has chosen not to.
> You can draw your own conclusion there, too.****
>
> ** **
>
> Matthew Kaufman****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Bo Burman
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:27 AM
> *To:* Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue****
>
>  ** **
>
> 1) We do agree that H.264 Constrained Baseline and VP8 are comparable in
> terms of video quality. But do not forget that Constrained Baseline's twin
> sister H.264 Constrained High outperforms VP8 by a huge margin. This is
> also relevant.****
>
> ** **
>
> 2) The "back-and forth of numbers" seems to refer to Ericsson's work where
> we tried to make a fair comparison to evaluate the extraordinary claims
> from Google that VP8 is 70 or 40 percent better than x264. We found serious
> issues with the way Google performed the test, maybe the most striking were
> the use of padding (+8% for x264) and excessive number of threads (+10% to
> +40% for x264) to add overhead to x264. That Google managed to remember the
> threading parameter only when it helped****
>
> VP8 (the speed test) is also quite remarkable.****
>
> ** **
>
> 3) Regarding IPR, this is a difficult topic, but we're not at all
> convinced that VP8 is royalty free. For example, there is an IETF IPR
> disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/) where the IPR holder
> seems unwilling to license (on any terms), and
> http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/german-vp8-infringement-cases-show.htmland
> http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/itc-institutes-investigation-of-nokias.htmlshow that there are in fact ongoing litigations regarding VP8 - and this is
> only skimming the surface of what is available in public space.****
>
> ** **
>
> /Bo****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Harald Alvestrand
> *Sent:* den 24 oktober 2013 13:12
> *To:* rtcweb@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue****
>
> ** **
>
> On 10/23/2013 09:42 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:****
>
> On 10/23/2013 02:51 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:****
>
>  Just a reminder:****
>
> The back-and-forth of numbers doesn't change the core question of this****
>
> debate.****
>
> Both codecs are capable of high quality video encoding, and performance****
>
> numbers are comparable.****
>
> ** **
>
> The real core question is the IPR issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> The tradition of the IETF says that allowing only business models that****
>
> can sustain royalty agreements and royalty payments is Bad for the Internet.****
>
> ** **
>
> The dominant video codec, H.264, is a royalty-required codec.****
>
> ** **
>
> Do we switch now, or do we give up and live with royalties forever?****
>
> ** **
>
>  ** **
>
> Harald,****
>
> ** **
>
> I would like to see some references to the tradition of the IETF that****
>
> you've quoted.****
>
> ** **
>
> For the record, I agree with the sentiment, but I'd like to be able to****
>
> back up the claim itself with references or explicit decisions that were****
>
> made in that regard.  I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, just****
>
> looking for citations to back up the arguments, both on and off list.****
>
> ** **
>
>  Basil, very happy to provide references!
>
> RFC 3979, a core document about IPR in the IETF, 2005:
>
> ****
>
> 8.  Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups****
>
> ** **
>
>    In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR****
>
>    claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of****
>
>    royalty-free licensing.  But IETF working groups have the discretion****
>
>    to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory****
>
>    terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this****
>
>    technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims****
>
>    or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.****
>
>
> The complete section gives some more details, but this is the central
> quote.
>
> You may also enjoy reading the section of RFC 6569 (the guidelines that
> were followed in the OPUS work) that deals with IPR:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6569#page-8
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>