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

[Heinrich Sinnreich]

>I think we should consider the balance
> between cost, risk, quality, and existing adoption, and it would be foolish to
> omit cost-bearing codecs from that analysis, as H.264 is widely used already.

I am not sure where this discussion is going, though it reminds us of the
discussions when arguing about SIP vs. H.323 in the IETF.
"Everybody" was shipping H.323 in overwhelming quantity, but somehow the
IETF did not buy it.

As an hopeless optimist; maybe H.264 will have the same fate since at least
it's considerable IP baggage is so well known...

It is hard to imagine the IETF and indeed the market will ignore the
creativity of all the codec developers out there and the evolving technology
that empowers them. Plain self interest should motivate embracing new
IP-free a/v codecs for the RTC Web. They will arrive anyway one way or
another. 

[Well deployed technology has a proven way to make it over the threshold
into history :-)] 

Henry


On 12/22/10 5:46 PM, "David Singer" <singer at apple.com> wrote:

> I should say that I am perfectly happy to have the discussion about whether,
> and what, to mandate codec(s).  If the placeholder is there to spark the
> discussion, you succeeded!
> 
> For me, significant IPR risk is worse than a payment -- free but risky is not
> an improvement on costs-but-low-risk.  But others may differ, of course.
> 
> I do think we should be looking carefully at layered design.  Ideally, we
> define the missing technology bits -- HTML, Javascript/DOM, and so on;  and
> then, perhaps, we write an umbrella specification that uses those, and other
> technology pieces, to achieve an interoperable end.  But the pieces should
> 'make sense' by themselves, and be usable with other assemblages, I think, if
> the specs are to have 'legs' and survive over years.  The pieces are ideally
> stable standards/publications in their own right (and I agree, sometimes,
> rarely, something is stable and well-known enough, such as ZIP or ID3 tags,
> without being a 'standard').
> 
> I also agree that RF codecs are happening and are here to stay.  Those of you
> who know me from MPEG will have heard this before.  They will exist, and they
> will have a place. MPEG is working (slowly) on RF codecs as well.
> 
> As to what MPEG-LA is doing, I am afraid I don't actually know. We'd have to
> ask them, and they tend not to reply. The silence is strange, but I don't
> think that mitigates the possibility that there is an IPR entanglement.
> 
> Despite Henry's position (that mentioning VP8 results in no rat-holes and
> flames, and that mentioning H.264 will) I think we should consider the balance
> between cost, risk, quality, and existing adoption, and it would be foolish to
> omit cost-bearing codecs from that analysis, as H.264 is widely used already.
> 
> The link between open-source and royalty-free is not perfect;  there are
> quality open-source implementations of non-free codecs, for a start, and there
> are companies who license proprietary systems royalty-free.  Let's not confuse
> the two, even if they often occur together.
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch