Subject: [rtcweb] MTI video codec

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:36:03 -0400

Leon Geyser <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Does anyone know the IPR status of H.261?

   Of course not!

> On the ITU website it lists some patents registered 11 years after the
> other patents: http://www.itu.int/ipr/IPRSearch.aspx?iprtype=PS

   I did follow up on that: there are a bunch of Robert Bosch GmbH patents
and one Polycom patent. The Polycom one is easy to find: it was issued
December of 1988. The Bosch ones are a little too hard for me to follow,
but they appear to have been issued years earlier.

   But none of those really matter. While there might be interoperable
implementations of H.261 that run afoul of some patent issued after the
publication of H.261, that would really be accidental. All one needs to
do is find an old enough implementation of H.261 and be sure to add
nothing the least bit clever in transliterating the code. (If it is C
code, that's already done.)

> Here are some of my opinions:
> - If Google resolves the IPR issues around VP8 then VP8 should be MTI. (No
> negotiation failure)
> - If it can't be resolved and H.261 can be freely implemented then H.261
> should be MTI. (Browsers will still implement H.264 or VP8)
> - If H.261 also has IPR issues then no codec should be MTI. (Browsers will
> still implement H.264 or VP8, but there will be negotiation failures. Audio
> only.)
> - If H.264 is MTI then not all new browsers will be willing to implement
> WebRTC. Only the popular browsers will use WebRTC. So much for an open
> web...Also other programs interfacing with WebRTC would need licensing for
> H.264.

   I agree, subject to "some" wordsmithing.

1) If Google resolves the IPR issues around VP8 to the satisfaction of
   the browser distributors more comfortable with H.261, VP8 should be
   MTI.

2) If H.261 licensors resolve the IPR issues around H.261 to the
   satisfaction of the browser distributors more comfortable with VP8,
   H.261 should be MTI. (There's nothing wrong with both being MTI.)

3) If neither 1) nor 2) are satisfied. H.261 should be MTI.

   There is no question it's _possible_ to safely implement H.261. It's
not very good, but it's a starting point. (Anything we specify _will_
be a starting point! It just would be nice to find a better one...)

   I can easily imagine either (or both) 1) and 2) being satisfied; but
I'd have to pinch myself to be sure I wasn't dreaming!

   We're never going to reach consensus by exchanging messages from two
camps both saying, "Be reasonable! Do it my way." Both camps have good
reason to prefer their choice. Unless at least one camp can specify
what it would take to be satisfied with the IPR status of the other
camp's choice -- and we can see a path to getting that in reasonable
time -- I suggest we seriously consider the fallback to H.261.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:40:38 -0700

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 03/29/2013 04:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > Attached are draft minutes for the second day of the RTCWEB meetings at
> > IETF 86, please review and send comments to the list.
> >
>
> I predict that a lot of people that are not familiar with the core group of
> RTCweb participants will read this minutes, so I would suggest to check
> that
> the first time a name appears in the minutes, it is the full name of the
> person, not just the first name (and perhaps with the full name all
> uppercase
> so it is easier to find).  E.g. in the first paragraph, "Martin" should be
> replaced by "Martin Thomson" or "MARTIN THOMSON".  Same for "Giri",
> "Gaelle",
> "Daryl", "Kalyani", "Hadriel".
>
>
Ok, I've added last names where I know them or could hear them on the
recording.  There are a few that remain unclear to me.  Attached is the
updated version; if folks could review it and give names where they know
them, that would be useful.

thanks,

Ted

> Thanks.
>
> - --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: [email-masked]
> Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRViMzAAoJECnERZXWan7End0P/1z11JwuljlRMNPrT7urE584
> OwP4oQ5ayj+e9/E05NCoMMCk6guLSlPEvpcoBKeEjTFeLuN1k+R0HC9X35zYYX+F
> hsMq5px5+sN4GfoYCHkg9bT9lA9y718kSBhoUw2IBoYS3xPI3dnQwvXjzWV4UevU
> xNP7HP0VPBm/wTTVaohX2kU3VcJTBol0FsdkIJPVJ/+19KpFm6cqLaPIGx39atW3
> AQzjEhd7BzlxOEn5xK4FOy0tje9v3Hf+ifGihCDJDMTid9bFI4fGbOdKv/jkr9lG
> XHA/Uv0C31FMMBbQ1Xtni3/xTTFKuHNhcaaBDPX/yuKLbmWBEuOtycsBCUviUPs5
> //88tT2Y1WVWUNvc6WHfEjmpGeThT3YmRjDkFRZAnVSq8rKnxJlnDJdUzvFkBdVg
> /B2wh86C6lvkh6B48d322EEJ1iMnAjWSOs2+S1x6kkTR/ckk1MwEzxl8/cpkPOJ/
> UMmCzQW5abwRA84IV2LPSemuSnUBfShWxAN50JEIUBuJPD/8rEH1vOoZkBE+SF0g
> bPJswDJN/maJjXb12GEaKhZMp/ghZqIQapoaBNLVAmWetTkOhRcICLpF4tF5yGkW
> 6lLgSOUwF4RoK68r5sP0RaHHDE1tzUt4Tp2WsTf6yONOaYM4jpjCKF1/8j7JjClk
> vnk5NuNAHxsq06pnuA1p
> =WN5e
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:09:10 +0200

WG,

Attached is a version with change marks for a number of proposed changes
where I think the minutes can benefit from clarification and details.

I have one question mark where I don't understand what the minutes
reefer to. In Cullen's video presentation the following sentence exist:

Henning’s guideline on this was the guideline from the beginning.

Can someone please clarify?

Cheers

Magnus

On 2013-04-01 19:40, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> RTCweb participants will read this minutes, so I would suggest to
> check that

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:08:53 +0000

> Henning’s guideline on this was the guideline from the beginning.

Did anyone actually say that in the meeting? Was it Ted because I don't recall saying that.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:28:22 -0700

> > Henning’s guideline on this was the guideline from the beginning.
Henning's guideline is approximately "the point of mandatory to implement
anything is to avoid negotiation failure".

> Did anyone actually say that in the meeting? Was it Ted because I don't
Yes, as the minutes note, I said it at the floor mic during our discussion
of whether we should test  the MTI as proposed or treat the MTI as a
guideline on what approach would be commonly implemented and test at some
other level.

Ted