Subject: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:23 -0700

As agreed at the recent meeting, the chairs solicit internet-drafts
naming proposed mandatory-to-implement video codecs or codec sets by
October 15th, 2012.  Please include any technical data you believe
supports the choice you are proposing.  A non-exhaustive list of data
you may wish to include is found in slides 3-6 of
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtcweb-4.pptx .

Discussion based on these will commence immediately upon receipt,
rather than waiting until the October 15th deadline, so early
submission is encouraged.

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:36:09 -0400

To make my position clear. The WG should support both H 264 and VP8. VP8 for
obvious reasons. H 264 since it is nearly universally deployed. 

I would like to remind the WG of the importance of this decision in another
context. Our obligation to support persons of with hearing impairments.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_relay_service

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-184A1.pdf

Appendix B is instructive.  

There is a marvelous opportunity here to really do "the right thing" tm. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Ted Hardie
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012

As agreed at the recent meeting, the chairs solicit internet-drafts naming
proposed mandatory-to-implement video codecs or codec sets by October 15th,
2012.  Please include any technical data you believe supports the choice you
are proposing.  A non-exhaustive list of data you may wish to include is
found in slides 3-6 of
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-rtcweb-4.pptx .

Discussion based on these will commence immediately upon receipt, rather
than waiting until the October 15th deadline, so early submission is
encouraged.

regards,

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

---

From: Monty Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:28:45 -0400

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Richard Shockey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> To make my position clear. The WG should support both H 264 and VP8.

This misses the primary point of VP8: the fact that many stakeholders
here CANNOT implement h.264.  Every stakeholder can implement VP8.
Some refuse to do so as they have a sunk investment in h.264, but this
is not the same as 'cannot'.

> H 264 since it is nearly universally deployed.

You've lost me here.  I can't use it.  Oh sure, I have the code-- I'm
just not allowed to do anything with it, and MPEG-LA won't sell me a
license because I don't track downstream.

Monty
Xiph.Org

---

From: Monty Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:30:36 -0400

>> To make my position clear. The WG should support both H 264 and VP8.

Actually, I realize I may have misread what you wrote; you said
'support' which I took to mean 'mandate'.  I assumed that's what you
meant, but it is not what you wrote.

Monty
Xiph.Org

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:58:01 +0000

>is not the same as 'cannot'.

Monty,

I refuse to accept this 'CANNOT" argument.  It has been made before, in
many variants.  It's bogus, or at least unproductive.

"CANNOT" necessarily is different from the viewpoint of various entities.
However, in our case, I believe it boils down to what the entity calls an
acceptable risk, and not so much into "investments sunk".  The definition
of an acceptable risk is up to the stakeholder that makes the
determination, not you or me.  If one stakeholder entity believes that
violating, however openly, an open source license of their choice means
they CANNOT implement a certain technology, so be it.  (We all know that
with respect to H.264 implementations, some folks beliefs are very
differently from what people argue in rtcweb; x264 is published under the
GPLv2, right?).  I mean, I can accept that the stakeholder has good and
valid reasons to make the argument.  If one entity believes that they
would need to pay MPEG-LA, and that paying $6.5M per year for getting a
license under most H.264 patents put them out of business, it's again a
useful argument, but not, in isolation, a decisive one.  Those entities
obviously have the right to make their point, as you do, and as the
Mozilla guys do.  (Not listing Google here; their motivations may well be
a bit less straightforward, but that's for them to comment on and not for
me.  Just a small stab: if "investments sunk" would really play a big
role, then let's look who has sunk one of the biggest investments into a
codec technology over the past few years :-)

However, if another stakeholder entity decides, for reasons of their own,
that an implementation of VP8 may expose them to risks to the point that
legal or business says cannot, then they CANNOT.

These two CANNOTs must have the same strength when determining rough
consensus.

We have heard both voices.  The two camps are approximately of the same
strength.  Even when looking at browser market share, neither camp is an
overwhelming "winner".  Which is why I suggested in Vancouver that it may
be time to follow the WhatWG and W3C's lead and leave the mandatory video
codec selection to the browser vendors, not to a standards community that,
as this discussion shows again and again, is ill-prepared to deal with
commercial realities.  Leaving it to the browser vendors knowing that, at
least initially, we may have interop problems.

I said in Vancouver that it is unacceptable to allow the commercial
considerations of an industry operating under one business model (for
example open source), to block standards development going in a certain
direction, if there are others operating under another business model
(close source and $$$ for licensing) and they want a different direction.
I will continue to say so.  And will object quite noisily if such an
argument would be decisive in the IETF's decision making process, one way
or another.

>license because I don't track downstream.

So start tracking downstream.  Your business model does not allow for it?
Change it!

---

From: Monty Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:22:36 -0400

> Your business model does not allow for it?
> Change it!

You're entitled to your model, but I'm not entitled to mine?  Well, of
course, neither of us is entitled to anything.

But to the point: No, I will not.

I will continue to push for and accept only RF-or-nothing, as will
many [most?] of the individuals actually contributing the work.  This
is non-negotiable with respect to many of our participation.  That's
not an ultimatum, it's a statement of fact (and part of Xiph's
corporate charter; we must pull out if we ourselves cannot deploy it.)

Others are welcome to bring the proceedings to a crashing halt if they
so desire, and set up a nice, tightly controlled little proprietary
sandbox where no one 'unapproved' is able to contribute, and we'll see
how far that goes.  Pity, there was already so much completed work.

The Web was invented many times.  No one cared until one came along
that was Free.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Monty
Xiph.Org
"All progress relies on the unreasonable man."

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:49:05 -0400

We have heard both voices.  The two camps are approximately of the same
strength.  Even when looking at browser market share, neither camp is an
overwhelming "winner".  Which is why I suggested in Vancouver that it may be
time to follow the WhatWG and W3C's lead and leave the mandatory video codec
selection to the browser vendors, not to a standards community that, as this
discussion shows again and again, is ill-prepared to deal with commercial
realities.  Leaving it to the browser vendors knowing that, at least
initially, we may have interop problems.

[RS> ] I suggest that this is not a can you can kick down the road
indefinitely. At some point we will have to make a decision since the
ultimate goal is a globally interoperable service.  

I said in Vancouver that it is unacceptable to allow the commercial
considerations of an industry operating under one business model (for
example open source), to block standards development going in a certain
direction, if there are others operating under another business model (close
source and $$$ for licensing) and they want a different direction.
I will continue to say so.  And will object quite noisily if such an
argument would be decisive in the IETF's decision making process, one way or
another.

---

From: Monty Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:21:54 -0400

> not to a standards community that, as this
> realities.

Commercial realities?  I thought we were the Lorax: we spoke for the
Net, not for any one group's commercial realities.  There's a world
outside of MPEG.

The net is a public resource, a public utility.  Everyone is allowed
to use the pipes.  The water in the pipes is not free, but it is
provided nearly at cost and ~ universally.  The public has a right to
the pipes and the water.  Companies do not own the pipes.  They do not
own the water.  But companies reap the benefits of clean, potable
water (and a sewer system, though it's not as much fun to talk about)
like everybody else.

When the water in the pipes must be licensed, tracked, and restricted,
by a single for-profit consortium with complete authority in the
matter, it is no longer a public resource.  It becomes a bad musical.

I will not be able to buy the water in these pipes.  Not because I
can't afford it; those who control it will not sell me a license
because I'm not willing to become an extension of their water
enforcement agency.  It is not about money, it is about control.

So I am actually slightly offended at the suggestion I do not
understand the commercial reality.  I am knowingly standing against
where it wants to take us.

If WebRTC becomes encumbered, it very simply becomes yet another
for-profit play, and that's... just not very interesting.  We already
have several of those in the same space.

Monty

---

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:26:08 +0200

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:21:54 -0400

> have several of those in the same space.

I agree.

Besides, it's not like just the browsers need to agree on the codec. Endpoints may not be browsers, but something someone else builds to make new and exciting applications out of the bricks WebRTC provides us with. As I already said some time ago, an encumbered codec would cut out most of the people who could fuel WebRTC with new ideas, use cases and so on.

Go tell a student/geek that if he wants to implement a WebRTC endpoint that takes video from a peer, manipulates it somehow for fun and then gives it back or sends it to another peer that he needs a license for that. That of course also applies to small/tiny companies or startups: how many of them would embark the WebRTC road to try and make some business, knowing they should buy god-knows-how-many licences that could sink their business before it can even start? If they're even given the choice to buy some, of course, according to what Monty said.

Just my two ents,
Lorenzo

-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, COB

Meetecho s.r.l.
Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
http://www.meetecho.com

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:45:58 -0700

Howdy,

I just want to remind folks contributing to this thread where we are
in the process:  getting documents which make *concrete, technical*
proposals.  Those need to be in by October 15th.  Please focus your
energy on that.

thanks,

Ted Hardie