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

[Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com]

Hi Harald,

We can reference things as long as they are public and stable. But I also think that if we were to mandate some technology as part of an IETF standard, the future development of that technology should preferably be done under an open process. How does the future development of VP8 (or VP9) will happen from that point of view? I've seen some concerns about this so it would be good to get the facts.

As long as VP8 spec itself is not published as an Internet-draft, I don't suppose the IETF IPR rules apply to it. So I'm not sure which process we are following with it right now. That would be good to clarify.

Regards,
                Markus


From: ext Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no]
Sent: 22 December, 2010 17:14
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: Isomaki Markus (Nokia-CIC/Espoo); peter.musgrave at magorcorp.com; rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org; ted.ietf at gmail.com
Subject: Codec standardization (Re: [RTW] [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00)

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/attachments/20101222/4242f0a2/attachment-0001.html>