Subject: [rtcweb] Incoming liaison statement from MPEG

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:40:12 +0000

Hi all,
Please find attached an incoming liaison statement from MPEG.  It's short, and therefore attached.  For those not familiar with MPEG's terminology: "AVC" stands for "Advanced Video Codec" and is used in certain circles for what other people know as H.264, and sometimes, depending on context, only for the non-scalable and non-multiview profiles of H.264.  (H.264 is the ITU designation for the joint standard).  MPEG-4 part 29, or WebVC is, as described in the statement, what most people know as "constrained baseline H.264", i.e. H.264 baseline without the rarely used tools known as Arbitrary Slice Order, Flexible Macroblock Order, and Redundant Slices.
Also, in order to avoid possible confusion, let me emphasize that this liaison statement comes from the standardization body known as MPEG (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 ) and not from the licensing administrator known as MPEG-LA.
Regards,
Stephan

---

From: "David Benham (dbenham)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:58:31 +0000

To further connect dots, this part 29 effort in MPEG/IEC/ISO towards a non-royalty bearing solution was mentioned in our draft below as a potential upside to selecting H264/AVC constrained baseline profile today.  Unfortunately, the outcome will not be known soon enough, but to the extent future surprises weigh on our decision ... this one is positive!

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-00
6.4.  Future IPR Status Consideration
   For additional informative purposes, the MPEG/IEC/ISO made a call for
   a royalty-free video coding solution for the Internet.  As of its
   98th meeting, two tracks forward are being pursued; one of which is
   based on the H.264/AVC constrained baseline profile [AVC06].  MPEG is
   presently collecting patent licensing declarations that would include
   patent holder's royalty expectations unbundled from other higher
   profile mechanisms.  Should this effort result in a royalty-free
   constrained baseline profile, this would benefit RTCweb in the future
   if H.264/AVC is selected as mandatory today.

From: Stephan Wenger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 2:40 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [rtcweb] Incoming liaison statement from MPEG

Hi all,

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:15:30 +0000

On Oct 24, 2012, at 3:40 AM, Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]> wrote:

> <29n130661.doc>_______________________________________________
> video-codec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec

PDF version of the liaison is attached for folks that requested it.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:24:38 +0200

> To further connect dots, this part 29 effort in MPEG/IEC/ISO towards a non-royalty bearing solution was mentioned in our draft below as a potential upside to selecting H264/AVC constrained baseline…
FWIW, there have been 11 IPR submissions into the ISO registry on MPEG-4 
part 29 to date; 1 of them specifies that the IPR is available on a 
royalty free basis, 10 do not. Unless I miscounted.

Apple deserves to be commended for making a royalty-free commitment, but 
it's a lonely position.

The registry of IPR submissions is available at 
http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/patents

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