[RTW] [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00

[Bernard Aboba]

It does appear presumptive to suggest that a codec that hasn't completed a standardization process be made "mandatory to implement."

Since there have been some large judgments over use of 
allegedly "free" codecs, the lesson is that codecs that are claimed to 
be "free of encumbrance" may in time be discovered not to be.  The IETF process can potentially be useful in helping to clarify the IPR status of codecs.  However, those wheels grind slowly. 

From: Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com
To: peter.musgrave at magorcorp.com; harald at alvestrand.no
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:38:42 +0000
CC: rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org; ted.ietf at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RTW] [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification	for	draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
















Hi Peter, all,

 

About the video codec: Are there any arguments on why VP8 would
not have IPR issues? It is available as an open source implementation, but that
does not mean there are no IPR against it. My understanding is that the IPR
situation wrt. VP8 is still unclear and thus risky. The other issue with VP8 is,
as far as I know, the lack of a clear spec out of which independent interoperable
implementations can be created.

 

So I don’t at least buy the argument that we should choose
VP8 as mandatory to implement video codec because of IPR reasons.

 

I’m working on a separate review on Harald’s drafts
(thanks for putting them together) and will come back to the codec issue there in
more detail, but just wanted to respond to Peter’s point here.

 

Regards,

                Markus


 







From: dispatch-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:dispatch-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Peter Musgrave

Sent: 17 December, 2010 13:48

To: Harald Alvestrand

Cc: rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org; Ted Hardie

Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00





 



I'd also like to echo Alan's thanks for these drafts. 





 





The protocol doc is very clear. [If you read only one
dispatch draft this Christmas, make it this one. ;-)  ]





 





One observation to the group. The mandatory to implement
video CODEC is VP8 (presumably since it does not have IPR issues - which some
other choices would have). 





 





Regards, 





 





Peter Musgrave





 





 







Nits





Introduction





s/veichle/vehicle/





 





Section 2
Para "Within each.."





s/implementaiton/implementation/





 





Section 4
Para1





"such
as" (something missing here?)





 





Section 5
Para2





"There
is no third mandatory to implement" 





? Was
there a mention of a third before. Not sure why this statement is there.







 



 





On 2010-11-10, at 6:34 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:











This is the overview document for the IETF-related RTC-WEB
work.



-------- Original Message -------- 


 
  
  Subject: 
  
  
  New Version Notification for
  draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
  
 
 
  
  Date: 
  
  
  Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:31:05 -0800 (PST)
  
 
 
  
  From: 
  
  
  IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission at ietf.org>
  
 
 
  
  To: 
  
  
  harald at alvestrand.no
  
 


 

A new version of I-D, draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Harald Alvestrand and posted to the IETF repository. Filename:      draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocolsRevision:      00Title:         Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-based ApplicationsCreation_date:  2010-11-11WG ID:         Independent SubmissionNumber_of_pages: 9 Abstract:This document gives an overview of a protocol suite intended for usewith real-time applications that can be deployed in browsers - "realtime communication on the Web". It intends to serve as a starting and coordination point to make sureall the parts that are needed to achieve this goal are findable, andthat the parts that belong in the Internet protocol suite are fullyspecified and on the right publication track. This work is an attempt to synthesize the input of many people, butmakes no claims to fully represent the views of any of them.  Allparts of the document should be regarded as open for discussion.                                                                                    The IETF Secretariat.   

_______________________________________________

dispatch mailing list

dispatch at ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch



 









_______________________________________________
RTC-Web mailing list
RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/attachments/20101221/dfae14fb/attachment-0001.html>