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

[Gerard Fernando]

I also feel that it's not appropriate to choose VP8 as a mandatory codec. It 
makes sense to limit any mandatory codecs to standards. 


If VP8 does need to be standardized, the IETF CODEC WG comes to my mind as a 
possible place to carry out such a standard - I do understand that this WG is 
currently only focused on audio. I suppose the charter could be changed to 
include video. One advantage of this WG is that it aims to deliver a 
royalty-free spec. 


There's also a Call-for-Evidence put out by ISO/MPEG with the aim of starting a 
royalty-free codec development activity. 


Regards

Gerard Fernando




________________________________
From: David Singer <singer at apple.com>
To: markus.isomaki at nokia.com
Cc: rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org; ted.ietf at gmail.com
Sent: Tue, 21 December, 2010 13:46:00
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for 
draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00

I have to agree.  If IPR issues are what we want to avoid, VP8 seems like a poor 
choice (e.g. 
<http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/mpeg-la-looking-at-patents-for-googles-vp8webm-video/>).



On Dec 21, 2010, at 13:38 , markus.isomaki at nokia.com wrote:

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-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
> 
_______________________________________________
>dispatch mailing list
>dispatch at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/attachments/20101222/d73002a4/attachment-0001.html>