Subject: [codec] Standardization in ITU-T, what are the issues ?

From: "Ingemar Johansson S" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:06:30 +0100

Hi

I am curious to know to what extent proponents of a Codec WG in IETF has approached ITU-T with a request to standardize a RF codec. 

As I understand it there is a possibility of free membership which of course means limited rights to vote, however if I get this part correct it is a possibility to get voting rights via a countrys standards body. There is a chance that I don't get these details right as I have not myself digged into the membership rules of ITU-T.

Anyway, my question. Who has actively approached the ITU-T with this and what was he response ?. Also are there any meeting documents or other public info that documents this ?

BR
/Ingemar
=================================
INGEMAR JOHANSSON  M.Sc. 
Senior Research Engineer 

Ericsson AB
Multimedia Technologies
Labratoriegränd 11
971 28, Luleå, Sweden
Phone +46-1071 43042
SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289
[email-masked]
www.ericsson.com 
Visit http://labs.ericsson.com !
=================================

---

From: "Christian Hoene" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:16:35 +0900

Hello Ingemar,

> I am curious to know to what extent proponents of a Codec WG in IETF has
> approached ITU-T with a request to standardize a RF codec.

Gregory M. Lebovitz has posted this email two weeks ago:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Gregory M. Lebovitz
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 12:26 AM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [codec] *draft* agenda
> 
> >    d. Coordination has occurred with ITU-T SG 16
> 
> s/has occurred/is occurring
> 
> Justification:  We have had a good call between IETF leaders and
> ITU-T SG 16 and other ITU-T leaders to ensure good coordination
> around this topic. I and Cullen are drafting a formal Liaison to the
> ITU-T, which is being reviewed by the IAB and will be sent this
> weekend. But this effort will entail continued and on-going
> coordination with ITU-T, as they have much to offer in this process.

I am not aware of any official liaison statement, yet.

With best regards,

 Christian

---

From: "Ingemar Johansson S" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:32:38 +0100

Hi

Noted, but what I was asking was more like "who has tried to approach
ITU-T" earlier. If I recall things correctly there was a big laugh in
the audience when it it was stated at the mic that "you can go to the
ITU-T" at the last Codec BoF in Stockholm. 
So from the SPL level of the laugh there must be a few who have tried
this.

BR
Ingemar   

> From: Christian Hoene [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: den 10 november 2009 09:17
> To: Ingemar Johansson S; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [codec] Standardization in ITU-T, what are the issues ?
> 
> Hello Ingemar,
> 
> > I am curious to know to what extent proponents of a Codec 
> WG in IETF 
> > has approached ITU-T with a request to standardize a RF codec.
> 
> > From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> > Of Gregory M. Lebovitz
> > Justification:  We have had a good call between IETF 
> leaders and ITU-T 
> > SG 16 and other ITU-T leaders to ensure good coordination 
> around this 
> > topic. I and Cullen are drafting a formal Liaison to the 
> ITU-T, which 
> > is being reviewed by the IAB and will be sent this weekend. 
> But this 
> > effort will entail continued and on-going coordination with 
> ITU-T, as 
> > they have much to offer in this process.
>

---

From: "Ingemar Johansson S" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:46:59 +0100

Hi
 
What was the answer?, is there any documentation of this effort in the ITU-T archives. I guess there should be. I am just trying to understand the reality behind the general conception that it is difficult to approach ITU-T and to be honest I cannot imagine what the outcome is or was as I haven't tried it myself. 2000/2001 is quite a few moons ago an then the word royalty free was real difficult to find on the map, is there a chance that the attitude may have changed since, especially as a result of the discussions in IETF ?.
 
What I can see (URL's provided by colleagues active in ITU-T, I am not an ITU-T geek myself) the cost of participating as an associate in ITU-T is CHF10600 (~USD10000) per year. 
http://www.itu.int/members/associates/fees.html <http://www.itu.int/members/associates/fees.html> 
The limitations with being an associate is found at 
http://www.itu.int/members/associates/rights.html <http://www.itu.int/members/associates/rights.html> 
I am interested to know what the specific problems was or are, is it the cost or the lack of voting rights or a combination ?. If I understand it right one cannot vote directly as an associate but there are possibilities to go via the national body.
 
BR
/Ingemar

________________________________

Från: Alan Duric [mailto:[email-masked]]
Skickat: ti 2009-11-10 12:38
Till: Ingemar Johansson S; [email-masked]
Ämne: Re: [codec] Standardization in ITU-T, what are the issues ?

Dear Ingemar,

I have personally approached ITU on behalf of Global IP Solutions (at 
that time Global IP Sound), back in 2001/2002, with respect to 
standardization of iLBC.You can imagine the outcome.
I would not recommend to any of the authors of the current set of 
codecs to consider that process.
This question has been brought up at the last meeting in Stockholm and 
I suppose the conclusion was obvious.

Best regards,
alan

Alan Duric
CTO and Cofounder
Telio Holding ASA | Oslo exchange: TELIO

On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:06 AM, Ingemar Johansson S wrote:

> Hi
>
> I am curious to know to what extent proponents of a Codec WG in IETF 
> As I understand it there is a possibility of free membership which 
> of course means limited rights to vote, however if I get this part 
> correct it is a possibility to get voting rights via a countrys 
> standards body. There is a chance that I don't get these details 
> right as I have not myself digged into the membership rules of ITU-T.
>
> Anyway, my question. Who has actively approached the ITU-T with this 
> and what was he response ?. Also are there any meeting documents or 
> other public info that documents this ?
>
> BR
> /Ingemar
> Visit http://labs.ericsson.com <http://labs.ericsson.com/>  !
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

---

From: Alan Duric <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:38:17 +0100

Dear Ingemar,

Best regards,
alan

Alan Duric
CTO and Cofounder

---

From: Koen Vos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:26:41 -0800

The ITU liaison stated that their policy requires royalty free (RF) or  
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (RAND) for their standards. In  
practice that means that anyone can add IP to the standard as long as  
it brings a small improvement.

Unfortunately, that means their policy is incompatible with that of  
the IETF. They were fully aware of that when writing the liaison, yet  
didn't indicate a willingness to abandon their position.

ITU liaison:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file662.doc

koen.

Quoting Ingemar Johansson S:
> Hi
>
> What was the answer?, is there any documentation of this effort in  
> the ITU-T archives. I guess there should be. I am just trying to  
> understand the reality behind the general conception that it is  
> difficult to approach ITU-T and to be honest I cannot imagine what  
> the outcome is or was as I haven't tried it myself. 2000/2001 is  
> quite a few moons ago an then the word royalty free was real  
> difficult to find on the map, is there a chance that the attitude  
> may have changed since, especially as a result of the discussions in  
> IETF ?.
>
> What I can see (URL's provided by colleagues active in ITU-T, I am  
> not an ITU-T geek myself) the cost of participating as an associate  
> in ITU-T is CHF10600 (~USD10000) per year.
> http://www.itu.int/members/associates/fees.html  
> <http://www.itu.int/members/associates/fees.html>
> http://www.itu.int/members/associates/rights.html  
> <http://www.itu.int/members/associates/rights.html>
> I am interested to know what the specific problems was or are, is it  
> the cost or the lack of voting rights or a combination ?. If I  
> understand it right one cannot vote directly as an associate but  
> there are possibilities to go via the national body.
>
> BR
> /Ingemar
>
>
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:52:09 +0100

Hi Alan and Ingemar

Maybe Alan can refresh my memory but at the time I was the chairman of WP3/16 (working for COMSAT Labs) and do not recall an official proposal from GIPS to ITU (Note: currently I work for the ITU secretariat). Maybe there were informal consultations, but alas as Ingemar mentions this was eons ago and the landscape has changed tremendously.

Concerning the issue of vote, I have never seen in 20 years of ITU experience an instance of vote at a technical group meeting (such as study groups and their sub-groups). ITU study groups move forward by consensus, here usually meaning "lack of sustained opposition". Vote and representation by "national bodies" is part of the ISO and IEC process. Effectively, every one participating at a meeting has the opportunity to fully express themselves, and points of view are fairly taken into account. That's my experience, at least.

I hope Yusuke's presentation tomorrow may clear up some of the misunderstandings.

Best regards,
Simao

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ingemar Johansson S
Sent: 10 November 2009 13:47
To: Alan Duric; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [codec] Standardization in ITU-T, what are the issues ?

Hi

 
BR
/Ingemar

Dear Ingemar,

Best regards,
alan

Alan Duric
CTO and Cofounder

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:25:34 +0900

Alan,
I think that there is a difference between standardizing a codec and
standardizing iLBC, meaning coming to a group and saying I want to
standardize my codec (rubber stamp). I do not believe that any standard body
including the IETF will welcome a request to make your specific codec a
standard. I believe that the even the approach of the IETF if it decide to
standardize a codec is not to rubber stamp a codec.
Thanks
Roni Even

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Alan Duric
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:38 PM

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:30:51 +0900

Hi,
Inline
Roni Even

> Of Koen Vos
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:27 PM
> To: Ingemar Johansson S
> Cc: Alan Duric; [email-masked]

Roni: this is not the ITU process, if a candidate was selected based on
selection, than another party do not add to it. If collaboration take place
than the parties in the collaboration need to agree what will be in a codec.

---

From: "Gregory M. Lebovitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:08:42 -0800

>than the parties in the collaboration need to agree what will be in a codec.

Is this a key area of difference of process between the IETF and ITU-T:
   - In the IETF there is most commonly all 
parties working together to produce something, 
openly adding their respective insights, and I.P. 
(with associated IPR statements), into one thing.
   - In SG16 multiple parties of one, or a small 
number of people, each submit a candidate codec, 
those codecs are compared and evaluated 
technically, and then advanced with the 
characterizations to the voting members who then 
consider many factors, including I.P.R. and chose one winner?

This "pick the single best" vs "add the best 
components into one" is a big difference in the 
way the two SDO's go about this process, where 
ITU-T matches the former terse summary, and IETF matches the latter.

Comments on that observation?

Gregory.

---

From: Herve Taddei <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:11:20 +0100

As a clarification to the ITU-T process, we have different ways of working
depending on how the group wants to see the work progressing. For example,
ITU-T G.718 was developed having a baseline selection phase, then many
companies agreed to work on that baseline and to improve it. I think about
14 companies indicated their wish to contribute and the codec was finally
standardized. So you cannot really say that the ways of working are so
different, what you call "add the best components into one" has been done in
ITU-T. 

I have never seen any voting in ITU-T, but perhaps I am not old enough. When
there is consensus on the floor, the work progresses to the next phase,
there is no vote. There is no humming either, but all companies can express
their opinion.

Best regards,
Hervé

> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:09 PM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: stephen botzko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:32:35 -0500

In the ITU-T, the audio and video standardization (both SG16/WP3 activities)
are done quite differently - the video standardization process is well
described by your characterization of the IETF process.

The ITU-T audio questions spend a lot of time researching and agreeing on
specific requirements and objectives before they accept any codec
candidates.  Most of the meeting time is focused on this phase.  In the
meetings I have witnessed,  the requirements/criteria for selection are
clear enough that the selection process itself is not controversial -
consensus is achieved without the need for voting.

Regards
Stephen Botzko

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Gregory M. Lebovitz <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>  - In the IETF there is most commonly all parties working together to
> produce something, openly adding their respective insights, and I.P. (with
> associated IPR statements), into one thing.
>  - In SG16 multiple parties of one, or a small number of people, each
> submit a candidate codec, those codecs are compared and evaluated
> technically, and then advanced with the characterizations to the voting
> members who then consider many factors, including I.P.R. and chose one
> winner?
>
> This "pick the single best" vs "add the best components into one" is a big
> difference in the way the two SDO's go about this process, where ITU-T
> matches the former terse summary, and IETF matches the latter.
>

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:07:09 +0900

Hi,

On 11/10/09 10:26 PM, "Koen Vos" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (RAND) for their standards.

This is correct.

> In  

This is not necessarily correct; it depends on the culture of the technical
group in question.  Even in SG16, there are Questions where I personally had
a very hard time to bring in proposals that were encumbered, and had to show
much more than "small improvement" to get my stuff in---and favorable
licensing terms on top of that.

In contrast to what Alan Duric implied in a different email, the ITU has, in
the past, be quite willing to "experiment" with attempts to define royalty
free codecs.  H.264 and its failed RF baseline project is one prominent
example. 

> the IETF. 

This sentence, when read in isolation, is undoubtly correct.  However, when
read in context, it creates a wrong impression.

By their respective policy and guideline documents:

1. In the ITU, one has (as a minimum) to agree to RAND terms when working on
a standard.  In the IETF, there is no such requirement; it is perfectly OK
by policy (and has happened again just a few days ago) to submit a
disclosure without any licensing commitment, even after having influenced
the setting of a standard.
2. Both ITU-T and the IETF have an expressed preference for unencumbered
technologies in their respective policies and guideline documents.

When reviewing only the policies and guideline documents, the ITU actually
offers a slightly "better deal" towards users, compared to the IETF, when
looking at licensing obligations only.  It can do this because it has a
membership concept (with all its advantages and disadvantages), whereas the
IETF has not.  This is IMO fairly well understood in the patents&standards
community.

I believe that what you are really betting on is to introduce a culture
different from the one of the ITU and ETSI speech coding groups, by
attempting to choose the IETF as a venue.  Probably because you think your
chance of success is higher.  If successful, we are probably loosing a
rather large part of the experts community which prefers to work in the more
established culture, for reasons that may include IPR greed but perhaps also
the perceived knowledge that working in your culture would be a waste of
their time.

Please allow me to remind you that your attempt of forming an IETF codec WG
with the culture you appear to imply has, and probably will continue, to
meet opposition, as it would likely meet opposition in the ITU.  You already
had to rephrase all of your requirements and draft charter documents to
remove any reference to a hard requirement of RF licensing, in order to make
it compatible with the IETF policies.  Do you think that people like me
asked to do so without a reason?  It may be that an RF requirement still
exists in your head, but not in mine, and I'm perfectly entitled to play
ball, just as you are.

Regards,
Stephan

> They were fully aware of that when writing the liaison, yet

---

From: "Benjamin M. Schwartz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:42:26 -0500

Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Do you think that people like me

Thank you for your honesty regarding your intention to disregard whether
our codec can be legally implemented in free software.  Knowing this, I
can make sure to oppose your technical suggestions until they have been
vetted extensively for licensing issues.

Culture is determined by the participants.  I believe in the importance of
free technology standards, and I intend to "play ball" as well.  I am not
alone.

- --Ben Schwartz

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:23:51 +0900

Hi Ben,

You are most welcome.  However, it's not really necessary to study my
technical contributions, if any, in any more detail than those of anyone
else here.  After all, we are all bound to the disclosure obligations of RFC
3979.  Further, I think I have an IETF-history of being rather open with
respect to IPR claims in the past--perhaps because I have a rough idea of
what can happen to the enforceability of one's patents if one doesn't play
by the rules.  (You may wish to check AVT's mailing list archives and/or the
IPR database in case you have doubts).

You and I appear to simlpy set different business priorities.  Yours appear
to lie in what you call "free" software; mine are in keeping one of the
generally well working licensing environments intact.  Both, I think, are
legitimate.  Further, I want to avoid anything that, in my opinion, may do
damage to an organization called IETF, to which I have contributed
occasionally over the last 10+ years, and whose great *protocol* work has
made the Internet possible.  I think, that's a legitimate goal as well.

(In the interest of full disclosure: I do not own patents in the field of
speech compression, nor, to the best of my knowledge, do any of my current
clients.  Some of my previous employers do own extensive patent portfolios
in the field in question.)

Stephan

On 11/11/09 5:42 AM, "Benjamin M. Schwartz" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Stephan Wenger wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkr50DIACgkQUJT6e6HFtqS37wCgnWv8ts4/3NK8L+CdTB+e+Orm
> zVIAnR3kMCT7OQDQrcF6EQj+B5msaKNI
> =mvR7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:31:50 +0900

Hi,
At the IETF there can be one or multiple individual  IDs for a solution and
if there is more than one they try to converge to one individual ID that
will serve as a base for one WG draft. 
To this working group draft everyone can contribute and their input will be
evaluated in order to consider its benefits.
This process can be the same for codec, the major issue is that to evaluate
the value of a proposed enhancement to a codec  the WG will need to
understand the benefits.  For audio codecs that will mean that each such
proposal may need to supply quality test results in order to enable a
meaningful comparison between the current proposal and the suggested
enhancement. This is not an easy and fast process.

Regards
Roni Even

> From: Gregory M. Lebovitz [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:09 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: [email-masked]
> > > > This question has been brought up at the last meeting in
> Stockholm
> > > and
> > > >> right as I have not myself digged into the membership rules of
> ITU-
> > > T.
> > > >>

---

From: Michael Knappe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:45:08 -0800

>From a low level codec development point of view, because of the highly interconnected and symbiotic model-based nature of most codec's internal components, it may be difficult to "add the best pieces into one" from multiple submissions apart from specifying separable profiles. I do think it is worth exploring the concepts of things like bit-compatible interoperability (where encoders and decoders do not produce identical results given the same test vectors) to allow flexibility in quality and computational complexity tradeoffs -> G.729 and G.729A is a good example of this.)

Mike

On 11/10/09 7:08 AM, "Gregory M. Lebovitz" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Gregory.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:51:45 +0900

Hi Greg,
With respect to your observation:
First, I believe you are over-generalizing what happens in SG16.  SG16 is
roughly as diverse as the RAI area in the IETF.  There are groups that put a
huge emphasis on collaborative work, and others which typically operate in a
less collaborative fashion that some people call shoot-out mode.  Speech
standardization often, though not always, has followed this latter approach.
Video standardization and most protocol related work (as well as modem work
back since) followed the collaborative approach.
Second, let's assume, for the sake of assumption, that people contributing
to the ITU speech standardization are neither stupid nor inherently evil,
and that their employers, in their vast majority--non practicing entities
such as universities and IP companies excluded--have an interest in getting
products out.  Still with decades of experience in speech standardization,
they have chosen the shoot-out mode, never mind the inherent delays and
pain.  People of the same employers work perfectly well together in a
collaborative mode in creating video codecs and protocols.  Could it just
possibly be that using the shoot-out mode for speech is not bound to the
organization, however encrusted in its procedures it may be, but bound to
the technology?  Maybe, in speech codec design, the sum of parts is not
necessarily better than the parts taken in isolation?
Having followed this mailing list, I have seen entirely too much position
maneuvers of the key proponents to come to a radically different conclusion.
Regards,
Stephan