Subject: [rtcweb] Summary of Video Codec contributions

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:20:34 +0200

WG,

The Video Codec selection internet draft to RTCWEB WG I have seen are
the following four:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-00.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec/

Please review information and proposals and lets start discussing them
on the mailing list prior to the WG meeting in Atlanta.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Neil Stratford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:35:37 +0100

> on the mailing list prior to the WG meeting in Atlanta.

Something that concerns me about video codecs is the availability of a
scalable coding profile. Many plugins that we are trying to replace
with WebRTC appear to be starting to make use of scalable coding
techniques to enable efficient multi-party calls. To encourage the
replacement of such plugins the codec specified in WebRTC should offer
the ability to match what is best practice today.

I understand that H.264 has Annex G, and that VP8 has something
similar. Are there any issues around making this MTI for either codec
that would help drive a decision?

Neil

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:49:10 +0200

> that would help drive a decision?
For one thing, I believe the hardware support for SVC is minimal to 
nonexistent.
People have also been raising doubts about the cost/benefit tradeoff of 
H.264 SVC.

At the moment, we have no proposals to adopt SVC as MTI, so I believe 
the point is moot.

Of course, any implementation that supports codecs beyond the MTI will 
be free to offer them as part of the negotiation phase. But that doesn't 
make them MTI.

                   Harald

---

From: Erik Lagerway <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:56:55 -0700

Thought it important to point out the fact that FREE-P8 (VP8) would likely
be the preferred codec implemented by independent developers. Royalties and
admin headaches create a barrier to entry. Independent dev shops equate to
a great deal of innovation and some of these have been responsible for
dictating the standard in market with hundreds of millions of users. Yes,
there is plenty of interoperability with 264 today but that doesn't mean it
will be that way tomorrow.

Can't we do both, as we have done for Audio MTI? Cost for implementation of
both is not really that high and if VP8 is included it will likely be the
choice for rtc indie devs globally, spurring innovation.

If unknown IPR is the only real reason not to include VP8 then I maybe we
are not trying hard enough. RTCweb / WebRTC is supposed to be the next big
thing, why hamper innovation like this?

I understand this will likely not count as a vote, just wanted to voice
some concerns. My apologies in advance if this has been answered in another
thread or offline. I searched the threads and found no reference and my
double isn't always available.

/Erik

*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> |
*Hookflash<http://hookflash.com>
* | m 1.604.562.8647*
****

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:20 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Ron <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:50:46 +1030

Hi Erik,

> will be that way tomorrow.

Very true.  Though for developers who don't click-track and count users
of their software it is more than just preferred.  An RF solution is
actually the only viable way for this standard to be accessible to them.

Any standard that immediately excludes a large portion of potential
developers and adopters can only ever be of niche value and is certain
to be replaced before long by an alternative that doesn't have that
constraint as a fundamental flaw preventing its broadest use.

If the whole point of this group was to avoid further fracturing of
the developer efforts in this space, then solving this problem now
would be much preferable to forcing another group to develop another
competing standard that does address that issue.  It would be a sad
waste of the invested time of the people here if we didn't recognise
this necessity.

I think the points you make above are very relevant here.

> Can't we do both, as we have done for Audio MTI?

Well, the M in MTI stands for Mandatory.  So mandating both would be
mandating the barriers to entry that you so clearly identified above?

Mandating an RF video codec, and permitting any other to be negotiated
as an extension would be more like what we decided was best for audio.

> are not trying hard enough.

If that's the only reason people have for opposing VP8 then maybe they're
trying too hard.  Resorting to imaginary reasons to make the issue seem
more complex than it really is doesn't seem very enlightening.

Every day that goes by leaves this argument dangling from a thinner, more
strained thread of tenuousness.  It's been well over a year since the very
public call to form an offensive pool was made or even since the last very
vague mumbling of "yeah, some people responded.  honest." - meanwhile VP8
continues to serve millions of users every day through things like youtube
et al. with no concrete claim being made against them of infringement.

It's not like this is a secret, so any submarine patent holder must know
that laches is now daily eroding their 'investment'.  The extensive patent
search made in the attempt to form a pool surely only weakens their case
further in the absence of any real disclosure or claim being made - if not
outright coming close in itself to 'proving' that no such IPR exists.

If VP8 was mandated here, I presume that would additionally place an
obligation of disclosure on any of the participants of this group, which
would strengthen that protection even more.

If we get to the end of this process and there are still no actual claims
being presented for substantiation, then it seems reasonable to conclude
that we may be as safe as it is ever possible to be from "unknown IPR"
(until the laws are changed to end that kind of madness once and for all).

By contrast the present day known burdens of H.264 are very real, and if
we're going to project our future concerns, then I think we've got more
to worry about from the royalties for H.264 being dialled up greatly as
the patents on it begin to expire and their holders want to 'encourage'
people to switch to H.265 while its patents are still nice and fresh.

Locking people into that seems like a far greater danger.  Especially
since unlike VP8, H.264 really has had submarine patents surface on it
and really is an exposed pawn in the present theatre of patent warfare
that everyone else seems to be ducking stray bullets from these days.

So spruiking there's somehow a spookier risk to VP8 in the face of all
available evidence to the contrary seems like some sport where you have
to squint pretty hard and tip your head 90 degrees to the left in a
dark room, before that line of plot extrapolation might perhaps appear
to be spinning in an even vaguely-real kind of direction, sort of ...

And even then, only if the people wanting you to buy that proposition
don't properly label their axes ...

> RTCweb / WebRTC is supposed to be the next big thing, why hamper
> innovation like this?

Indeed we should not, and I for one certainly hope consensus is
that we will not.

 Stay sharp!
 Ron

---

From: Erik Lagerway <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:39:14 -0700

> as an extension would be more like what we decided was best for audio.

Yes, I see your point and agree.

> Indeed we should not, and I for one certainly hope consensus is

Seems to me that if we want to see the indie webrtc developers flourish, we
need to implement a RF codec = VP8.  Unless of course the MPEG LA decides
to grant a RF license on 264/AVC before the WG votes on the MTI? Which does
not seem likely given the time frame. That plus the fact this 264/AVC non
royalty codec concept was tabled in the past and went nowhere, it seems.

I would like to see us foster grassroots innovation by making this tech
accessible to all developers, which essentially means zero royalty and
admin overhead.