I also feel that it's not appropriate to choose VP8 as a mandatory codec. It makes sense to limit any mandatory codecs to standards.

If VP8 does need to be standardized, the IETF CODEC WG comes to my mind as a possible place to carry out such a standard - I do understand that this WG is currently only focused on audio. I suppose the charter could be changed to include video. One advantage of this WG is that it aims to deliver a royalty-free spec.

There's also a Call-for-Evidence put out by ISO/MPEG with the aim of starting a royalty-free codec development activity.

Regards

Gerard Fernando

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
To: markus.isomaki@nokia.com
Cc: rtc-web@alvestrand.no; dispatch@ietf.org; ted.ietf@gmail.com
Sent: Tue, 21 December, 2010 13:46:00
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00

I have to agree.  If IPR issues are what we want to avoid, VP8 seems like a poor choice (e.g. <http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/mpeg-la-looking-at-patents-for-googles-vp8webm-video/>).

On Dec 21, 2010, at 13:38 , markus.isomaki@nokia.com wrote:

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>
To:

 

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
 
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.