Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

From: Rob Glidden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:45:59 -0800

Chris:

No, the revised text doesn't remove decision responsibility from this 
group, it does the opposite, by being accurate and following procedure.

The old text doesn't even get profiles right, and as said by others has 
overly and unnecessarily ambitious timeline and muddles licensing.

If a liaison-like communication is intended, use the established 
procedure for that -- IETF is a Category A liaison to SC 29.  Alias 
emails and non-consensus docs lack standing, don't establish that 
meaningful avenues were ever even tried, let alone exhausted, and might 
not even be read.

"MPEG-LA-is-a-monopolist" characterization casts wrong procedural net, 
among reasons pending lawsuits -- one more reason to be accurate and 
follow procedure.

Really is the language below so objectionable?  It is straightforward 
and constructive.

Rob

"The REQUIRED video codec should be a royalty-free codec which has been 
specified by a recognized standards process such as MPEG or other 
due-process standards group and provide reviewable substantiation of its 
royalty-free status."

On 12/14/2011 3:09 PM, Chris Blizzard wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rob Glidden"<[email-masked]>
>> To: "Chris Blizzard"<[email-masked]>
>> Cc: "Harald Alvestrand"<[email-masked]>, [email-masked], "Cary Bran"<[email-masked]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:40:00 AM
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
>> Chris:
>>
>> Please see rewording in email to Harald.
>>
>> Sharing your healthy skepticism, nothing has changed is no reason to
>> do
>> nothing. The proposed language fixes text, whether doubting or
>> timelining progress merited. If existing standards aren't as good as
>> they should be, work to improve them.
>>
> We've already got a defacto standard in WebM, even though it hasn't gone through a standards process.  Half the market of browsers have indicated they are willing to use it as the default codec for this effort (and the other half haven't even said they are willing to support WebRTC at all!)  We're also been shipping it for HTML5 support for quite a while so there's quite a bit of in-the-field experience with it.
>
> But the bigger problem is that your text removes the responsibility for the decision from this group and moves it to a standards organization which has no credible history of creating royalty-free standards.  It also creates an indefinite timeline for a decision.  That's not an improvement over what the text says today, so I think it's a bad idea to include it in the text.  I'm not comfortable with that.
>
> To get at the heart of the issue, I think that many people would like to use H.264 support as the default.  It's lower-friction and widely deployed.  But that's entirely up to the rights holders for that technology.  That's why there's a date and a specific call-out to MPEG LA as the monopoly rights holder in the text.  It's up to them to decide, and they have three months from tomorrow to do so.
>
> --Chris
>

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:09:49 -0800

> Really is the language below so objectionable? It is straightforward and
> constructive.

Yes.

> due-process standards group and provide reviewable substantiation of its

This shouldn't be the bar for picking a codec, and hasn't been the bar 
even for those of us who strongly advocate for RF formats. Neither MPEG 
nor anyone else has ever publicly provided such "reviewable 
substantiation" of the complete IPR status of any codec, and even MPEG 
LA specifically disclaims any implication that they provide a license to 
all patents necessary to implement their formats.

What actually matters is, are people willing to ship it? So far there's 
no evidence that the conditions you want to impose are even sufficient 
to get all browser vendors to ship a single codec, much less necssary.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:52:51 -0800

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> What actually matters is, are people willing to ship it?

This is the critical point.  The working group agreed to specify a
mandatory-to-implement here because we want to avoid interoperability
failures.   Defining one that folks won't ship does not achieve that
goal.  It's that simple.

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:00:18 -0800

Hi,

>failures.   Defining one that folks won't ship does not achieve that

For once, I completely agree with Tim and Ted (though I also concur that
Rob's language is an improvement over what was in the -01 draft, for
reasons stated by others and myself).  Scary :-)

So why not write it down Ted's reasoning?  Putting a bit of my own spin to
it, perhaps something like:

"It is desirable to have a mandatory codec that is supported in the
majority of newly deployed browsers.  Accordingly, the WG will wait for an
indication of consensus among the major browser vendors for a mandatory
codec of their choice.  If no such indication is received in a
sufficiently timely manner, then the WG will have to leave the mandatory
video codec unspecified."

Yes, from my viewpoint, major browser vendors include Microsoft and Apple
(both companies with business models that appear, today, to be compatible
with royalty-bearing codec technologies).  It's today's market reality.
And no matter how you spin it, it's going to continue to be the market
reality for a number of years.

No, from all I know it's not overly likely that there will be such a
consensus anytime soon.  But maybe, just maybe, the horse learns to sing.
The MPEG effort could offer an opening for such a "miracle".  I have heard
rumors that there may be other avenues as well--so have others in this WG,
I'm sure.  If the horse doesn't learn to sing--well, we would be no worse
off than HTML5 is today.

Stephan

>
>
>regards,
>
>Ted Hardie
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:41:11 -0800

> codec of their choice.  If no such indication is received in a

I'd be willing live with a lack of objections, instead of requiring 
affirmative consensus. Historically it has been very hard to get the 
latter, even about much less contentious technologies, but there is some 
precedent that people are willing to voice the former.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:46:08 -0800

I'm certainly not in the position to argue your point :-).  Fine.
When having a "lack of objection" formulation, I wouldn't even comment
negatively on a reasonably set deadline.
Stephan