[RTW] [dispatch] Codec standardization (Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00)

[Henry Sinnreich]

>The statement about VP8 in the rtcweb-protocols document is a placeholder,
>put in there to indicate that we need to have the discussion. It's not a WG
decision, but input to a WG discussion.

This is an excellent position, thanks Harald!

Now that many people agree on the need for an ³IP-free as possible² RTC Web
codec, it would be a good start to make a short list of candidates and then
discuss them on merit. Such as IMO (sorry I am not a video codec expert):
V8, Theora and what other may contribute that require no IP. Even just
starting with a table like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_codecs

To avoid rat holes and flames, I suggest not even to mention H.264 :-)
except as an example for what not to adopt.

Henry


On 12/22/10 9:14 AM, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:

>    On 12/22/10 07:18, Bernard Aboba 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.
>>  
>  I agree that we can't make anything mandatory to implement that we don't have
> an accepted stable, publicly available reference for. (I'm working on solving
> that for the case of VP8).
>  
>  However, I don't agree that we necessarily have to complete a standards
> process in order to refer to it; that would put, for instance, the Zip format
> (used, among other places, in OOXML and ODF) out of scope for standards.
>  
>  WRT IPR issues: I think we just have to push forward on the assumption that
> all IPR holders who are part of the process will do their duty and disclose
> any relevant IPR, and hope that IPR held by nonparticipants in the process is
> not serious enough to cause us to regret our decision.
>  
>  Note: The statement about VP8 in the rtcweb-protocols document is a
> placeholder, put in there to indicate that we need to have the discussion
> It's not a WG decision, but input to a WG discussion.
>  
>                        Harald
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/attachments/20101222/2a0217d5/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch