Subject: [video-codec] Please make a free and open video codec standard as defined by Digistan

From: Petter Reinholdtsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:53:04 +0200

I was very happy to discover that IETF had some activity to standardise
a video codec that can be used by everyone without royalty payments.  I
hope this effort result in a work group and a good specification..

I also hope the work can ensure that the final specification is a free
and open standard according to the definition from Digistan,
<URL: http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition >:

  The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard as
  follows:

   * A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
     in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible
     to freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over
     time.

   * The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
     organization, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
     open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties.

   * The standard has been published and the standard specification
     document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to
     copy, distribute, and use it freely.

   * The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
     irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.

   * There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.

  The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
  measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
  products based on the standard.

The initial charter draft look good in that respect, and I just wanted
to mention that I believe the charter look good.

-- 
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:12:51 -0700

> to mention that I believe the charter look good.

Thanks. I agree these are all desirable features. It's not possible to 
guarantee them all in advance, but I've tried to do as well as one can 
do in a charter (by liberally stealing Peter Saint-Andre's text from the 
codec WG charter), though I admit I'm not sure how to put "immunity from 
vendor capture" in a charter, but it was definitely something we 
considered during Opus development. Suggestions for improvements are 
welcome.

---

From: "Mohammed Raad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:47:13 +1000

Dear Timothy,

One of the advantages of international standards (I mean those produced by
ITU, ISO, IEC) is that they provide a great deal of "immunity from vendor
capture" because of the process used to develop these standards and because
of the commitments that technology (IP) owners make when they accept or
request that their technology is included in these standards.

As I mentioned previously, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 (MPEG) has an activity
attempting to develop an international standard in the space that this
charter addresses. Will those in the IETF interested in this area of
technology attempt to at least establish a liaison relationship between MPEG
and the IETF working groups in need of a video coding standard that meets
the requirements set in this charter? I would recommend this step to be
taken to avoid market confusion and fragmentation.

Best Regards,

Mohammed Raad, PhD.
Partner
RAADTECH CONSULTING
P.O. Box 113
Warrawong
NSW 2502 Australia
Phone: +61 414451478
Email: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Timothy B. Terriberry
Sent: Wednesday, 19 September 2012 5:13 AM
To: Petter Reinholdtsen
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [video-codec] Please make a free and open video codec standard
as defined by Digistan

Thanks. I agree these are all desirable features. It's not possible to
guarantee them all in advance, but I've tried to do as well as one can do in
a charter (by liberally stealing Peter Saint-Andre's text from the codec WG
charter), though I admit I'm not sure how to put "immunity from vendor
capture" in a charter, but it was definitely something we considered during
Opus development. Suggestions for improvements are welcome.
_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:04:52 -0700

> capture" because of the process used to develop these standards and because

In my experience vendor capture often that happens _after_ 
standardization (see the current mess around TTML as a great example of 
the kinds of things that can go wrong: 
<http://blog.gingertech.net/2012/09/18/what-is-interoperable-ttml/>). 
Getting the standardization process right is the easy part.

> taken to avoid market confusion and fragmentation.

I personally think a liaison relationship is perfectly reasonable. I 
know we had them with the ITU, ISO, and 3GPP in the codec WG, and I had 
assumed we'd wind up doing something similar for this WG if we formed 
it. I'd have to investigate the details of what we need to do to set one up.

---

From: "Mohammed Raad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 04:47:34 +1000

I think that what you are pointing to is the different standardized tool
subset that a vendor may implement - such that products from different
vendors are not interoperable. At ISO/IEC this problem is mostly manifested
in one standard having many profiles (e.g. AVC). We are trying to avoid this
problem within the IVC activity by defining one profile which would be
non-royalty bearing. Of course compatibility is based on which profile is
supported and the assumption is that the vast majority of vendors would
support a non-royalty bearing profile.

I think that it would be useful for all involved if WG11 was given an early
look at what this proposed charter contains. Besides having a formal liaison
arrangement, this can be done through an input contribution to the next
meeting (see http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/ for details).

Best Regards, 

Mohammed 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Timothy B. Terriberry
Sent: Wednesday, 19 September 2012 2:05 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [video-codec] Please make a free and open video codec standard
as defined by Digistan

Mohammed Raad wrote:
> One of the advantages of international standards (I mean those 
> produced by ITU, ISO, IEC) is that they provide a great deal of 
> "immunity from vendor capture" because of the process used to develop 
> these standards and because

In my experience vendor capture often that happens _after_ standardization
(see the current mess around TTML as a great example of the kinds of things
that can go wrong: 
<http://blog.gingertech.net/2012/09/18/what-is-interoperable-ttml/>). 
Getting the standardization process right is the easy part.

> technology attempt to at least establish a liaison relationship 
> between MPEG and the IETF working groups in need of a video coding 
> standard that meets the requirements set in this charter? I would 
> recommend this step to be taken to avoid market confusion and
fragmentation.

I personally think a liaison relationship is perfectly reasonable. I know we
had them with the ITU, ISO, and 3GPP in the codec WG, and I had assumed we'd
wind up doing something similar for this WG if we formed it. I'd have to
investigate the details of what we need to do to set one up.
_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:57:00 +0000

There is no need to set up another formal relationship: MPEG and the IETF
have such a relationship established.  It has been used on or off; the
last burst of activity was related to dash.

Let me also note that, in the IETF, liaison activity does not have the
same relevance as in bodies like MPEG.  In the IETF, if you want your
voice to be heard, you need to follow rule #1: be there.  (Which, by the
way, is not necessarily meant as physical presence, but rather as being an
active contributor--another difference between the IETF and more
traditional SDOs).  All liaison activity of the world cannot substitute
active participation here.

Stephan

---

From: "Mohammed Raad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:12:43 +1000

OK, that's all fine. Whichever way we do things, the purpose is to ensure
that we are on the same page because I strongly doubt that having two SDOs
working separately on addressing this particular space will lead to anything
in the next few years. BTW "be there" also applies to getting WG11 to
deliver what is needed.

Mohammed 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephan Wenger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2012 4:57 AM
To: Mohammed Raad; 'Timothy B. Terriberry'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [video-codec] Please make a free and open video codec standard
as defined by Digistan

There is no need to set up another formal relationship: MPEG and the IETF
have such a relationship established.  It has been used on or off; the last
burst of activity was related to dash.

Let me also note that, in the IETF, liaison activity does not have the same
relevance as in bodies like MPEG.  In the IETF, if you want your voice to be
heard, you need to follow rule #1: be there.  (Which, by the way, is not
necessarily meant as physical presence, but rather as being an active
contributor--another difference between the IETF and more traditional SDOs).
All liaison activity of the world cannot substitute active participation
here.

Stephan

On 9.19.2012 11:47 , "Mohammed Raad" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I think that what you are pointing to is the different standardized 
>tool subset that a vendor may implement - such that products from 
>different vendors are not interoperable. At ISO/IEC this problem is 
>mostly manifested in one standard having many profiles (e.g. AVC). We 
>are trying to avoid this problem within the IVC activity by defining 
>one profile which would be non-royalty bearing. Of course compatibility 
>is based on which profile is supported and the assumption is that the 
>vast majority of vendors would support a non-royalty bearing profile.
>
>I think that it would be useful for all involved if WG11 was given an 
>early look at what this proposed charter contains. Besides having a 
>formal liaison arrangement, this can be done through an input 
>contribution to the next meeting (see http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/ for 
>details).
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Mohammed
>
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]]
>On
>Subject: Re: [video-codec] Please make a free and open video codec 
>standard as defined by Digistan
>
>Mohammed Raad wrote: