Similarly, codecs that have gone through a standardisation process and have been made available for licensing have later been found to be not "free of encumbrance" and attracted lawsuits, so this argument does not hold up as an argument against open codecs. The IPR situation of any codec is simply never clear. IPR is not a good argument for or against the choice of a codec. The need to pay royalties, however, is a good argument against a codec, since it limits which parts of the population can use it and which can't. As for the question about an open specification document for VP8, it is available and can be downloaded from http://www.webmproject.org/media/pdf/vp8-bitstream.pdf . An independent implementation of VP8 can be made by anyone, see http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ . Regards, Silvia. On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>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.
------------------------------ From: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com To: peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com; harald@alvestrand.no Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:38:42 +0000 CC: rtc-web@alvestrand.no; dispatch@ietf.org; ted.ietf@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RTW] [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
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@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *ext Peter Musgrave *Sent:* 17 December, 2010 13:48 *To:* Harald Alvestrand *Cc:* rtc-web@alvestrand.no; dispatch@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@ietf.org> <idsubmission@ietf.org>
*To: *
harald@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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
_______________________________________________ RTC-Web mailing list RTC-Web@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
_______________________________________________ RTC-Web mailing list RTC-Web@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web