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

Wed Dec 22 08:03:40 CET 2010

Similarly, codecs that have gone through a standardisation process and have
been made available for licensing have later been found to be not "free of
encumbrance" and attracted lawsuits, so this argument does not hold up as an
argument against open codecs.

The IPR situation of any codec is simply never clear. IPR is not a good
argument for or against the choice of a codec. The need to pay royalties,
however, is a good argument against a codec, since it limits which parts of
the population can use it and which can't.

As for the question about an open specification document for VP8, it is
available and can be downloaded from
http://www.webmproject.org/media/pdf/vp8-bitstream.pdf . An independent
implementation of VP8 can be made by anyone, see
http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ .

Regards,
Silvia.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  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> <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-protocols
>
> Revision:      00
>
> Title:         Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-based Applications
>
> Creation_date:  2010-11-11
>
> WG ID:         Independent Submission
>
> Number_of_pages: 9
>
>
>
> Abstract:
>
> This document gives an overview of a protocol suite intended for use
>
> with real-time applications that can be deployed in browsers - "real
>
> time communication on the Web".
>
>
>
> It intends to serve as a starting and coordination point to make sure
>
> all the parts that are needed to achieve this goal are findable, and
>
> that the parts that belong in the Internet protocol suite are fully
>
> specified and on the right publication track.
>
>
>
> This work is an attempt to synthesize the input of many people, but
>
> makes no claims to fully represent the views of any of them.  All
>
> parts 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101222/33cb2253/attachment.html>