[video-codec] New Charter Draft
"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org> Thu, 24 January 2013 20:34 UTC
Return-Path: <tterribe@xiph.org>
X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592C711E80A2 for <video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:34:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.807
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i3xvwNtq344K for <video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx2.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D7311E809A for <video-codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.17.0.5] (c-67-169-183-68.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.183.68]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx2.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11988F2031 for <video-codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51019AEA.1020307@xiph.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:34:50 -0800
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120625 SeaMonkey/2.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: video-codec@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060501090500010809040208"
Subject: [video-codec] New Charter Draft
X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list <video-codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/video-codec>
List-Post: <mailto:video-codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:34:59 -0000
Thanks to Cullen, Harald, EKR, Robert, and Jean-Marc for participating in the con-call on Friday (and sorry if I forgot anyone else). Apologies for not getting this out sooner. It took a little longer than I was expecting to convert the text we hacked up back into coherent English. This doesn't address all of Cullen's issues (specifically, there's just a placeholder for the licensing terms), but should serve as a starting point to clean up any remaining concerns. I suspect a changelog would be too long to be useful, and the draft is 32% smaller now, so re-reading it is probably easier. I'm not sure a diff is useful either, but it was easy to produce, so I've included it. Full text of the new charter follows: Objectives This WG is chartered to produce a single, standardized, high-quality video codec that meets the following three conditions: 1. Is optimized for use in interactive Internet applications. 2. Is published by a recognized standards development organization (SDO) with clear change control and IPR disclosure rules. 3. Can be widely implemented and easily distributed among application developers, service operators, and end users. This codec will be optimized for the actual conditions of the public, consumer-level, best-effort Internet. It might have properties like fast and flexible congestion control, the ability to change bitrate smoothly over a range of at least two orders of magnitude without unnecessary quality degradation, the ability to join broadcast streams without waiting for a keyframe, special coding tools for screen captures to support remote services and desktop sharing, and many more. The objective is to produce a codec that can be implemented, distributed, and deloyed by open source and closed source software and hardware vendors, without the need to request a license, enter into a business agreement, pay licensing fees or royalties, or attempt to adhere to other onerous conditions or restrictions. Process Ensuring the existence of such a codec will require a development effort within the working group. The core technical considerations for such a codec include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. Use in interactive applications. Examples include, but are not limited to, point-to-point video calls, multi-party video conferencing, telepresence, teleoperation, and in-game video chat. 2. Tolerating packet loss. 3. Use in Internet applications and Web APIs, such as the HTML5 <video> tag, live streaming (e.g., via icecast), adaptive streaming (e.g., Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH), HTTP Live Streaming (HLS), etc.), the MediaSource API, the WebRTC APIs, proposed web recording APIs, and so on. However, the result should not depend on the details of any particular API. 4. Addressing the real transport conditions of the Internet, such as the flexibility to rapidly respond to changing bandwidth availability and loss rates, or as otherwise identified and prioritized by the working group. 5. Not require large amounts of out of bound data before a stream can be decoded. The Guidelines for Development of an Audio Codec within the IETF (RFC 6569) will form the starting point for guidelines and requirements for achieving the forgoing objectives for video. The working group will modify them as necessary with lessons learned during that process (for example, specifying the use of English text as the normative definition of the codec instead of source code), refining them into a new document in accordance with the usual IETF procedures once consensus has been achieved. The working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "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." Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group should not proceed with publication of a codec RFC if there is consensus that it cannot "be widely implemented and easily distributed among application developers, service operators, and end users." [An example of acceptable license terms would be: ["If you don't sue us over this spec, we won't sue you over this IPR"| "If you don't sue anyone over this spec, we won't sue you over this IPR"] |] Non-Goals Optimizing for very low bit rates (typically below 256 kbps) is out of scope because such work might necessitate specialized optimizations. Although a codec produced by this working group or another standards organization might be used as a mandatory-to-implement technology by designers of particular Internet protocols, it is explicitly not a goal of the working group to produce a codec that will be mandated for use across the entire IETF or Internet community nor would their be any expectation that this would be the only mandatory-to-implement codec. Based on the working group's analysis of the design space, the working group might determine that it needs to produce a codec with multiple modes of operation. However, it is not the goal of working group to produce more than one codec. Collaboration In completing its work, the working group should collaborate with other IETF working groups to complete particular tasks. These might include, but would not be limited to, the following: - Within the PAYLOAD WG, define the codec's payload format for use with the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP). - Collaborate with RMCAT and any other appropriate working groups in the Transport Area to identify important aspects of packet transmission over the Internet. - Collaborate with RMCAT to understand the degree of rate adaptation desirable, and to reflect that understanding in the design of a codec that can adjust its transmission in a way that minimizes disruption to the video. - Collaborate with working groups in the RAI Area to ensure that information about and negotiation of the codec can be easily represented at the signaling layer. - Collaborate with working groups in the RAI Area such as CLUE and RTCWEB to ensure the codec can satisfy all of their video-related use cases. The working group will coordinate with the ITU-T (Study group 16) and ISO/IEC (JTC1/SC29 WG11), with the intent of submitting the completed codec RFC for co-publication by the ITU-T and ISO if the co-publishing organizations find that appropriate. Deliverables 1. A set of Codec Standardization Guidelines that define the work processes of the working group. This document shall be Informational. 2. A set of technical Requirements. This document shall be Informational. 3. Specification of a codec that meets the agreed-upon requirements, in the form of an Internet-Draft that defines the codec algorithm. The text description of the codec shall describe the mandatory, recommended, and optional portions of the encoder and decoder. This document shall be a Proposed Standard. 4. A reference implementation of a software encoder and decoder. This will be in a separate document from the text description to allow it to be updated independently. It does not need to be standards-track. 5. Specification of a storage format for file transfer of the codec, to support non-interactive (HTTP) streaming, including live encoding and both progressive and chunked downloads. This docuemnt shall be a Proposed Standard. 6. A collection of test results, either from tests conducted by the working group or made publicly available elsewhere, characterizing the performance of the codec. This document shall be informational. Goals and Milestones TBD WGLC on codec standardization guidelines TBD WGLC on requirements, liaise to other SDOs TBD Requirements to IESG (Informational) TBD Liaise requirements RFC to other SDOs TBD Codec standardization guidelines to IESG (Informational) TBD WGLC on codec specification, liaise to other SDOs TBD WGLC on reference implementation, liaise to other SDOs TBD Submit codec specification to IESG (Standards Track) TBD Submit reference implementation to IESG (Informational) TBD WGLC on storage format specification TBD Submit storage format specification to IESG (Standards Track) TBD WGLC on Testing document TBD Testing document to IESG
- Re: [video-codec] New Charter Draft Philippe Le Hegaret
- [video-codec] New Charter Draft Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [video-codec] New Charter Draft Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [video-codec] New Charter Draft Harald Alvestrand