W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison

From: Gerard Fernando <gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:00:57 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <148382.25842.qm@web24001.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
To: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
I also agree with Rob that the original text is fine. It's a succinct response 
to Leonardo's liaison letter. 


Best regards

Gerard




________________________________
From: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>; "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" 
<public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Sent: Thu, 17 March, 2011 15:14:49
Subject: Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison

Simple, helpful and appropriate W3C response to the MPEG request to     consider 
DASH profiles:

"We would like to draw your attention         particularly to DASH’s profiles 
defined in DIS and would welcome         W3C to provide its needs and 
suggestions to improve them to         better fit W3C’s needs."

Is the same that was sent to 3GPP:

"We would very much appreciate if you         could inform us of the current 
status of the specification of         DASH and the possibility to work together 
on a royalty free         profile of the specification for potential integration 
of DASH         as adaptive streaming mechanism for audio and video in HTML. "

An RF profile might not have to fully unring the already-wrung RAND     bell.  
And the response doesn't put W3C validating the well-known     
blocking/quick-fix/FUD tactic of delaying RF profiles until it is     too late.

The original 3GPP text is fine, a short liaison response is not a     good venue 
for more complexity right now. 


Rob


On 3/17/2011 7:57 AM, Mark Watson wrote: 
Hi Rob, 
>
>
>At the workshop I suggested that we should not immediately go         down the 
>road of requesting a "RF profile". That view seemed to         have general 
>support.
>
>
>Requesting an "RF profile" implies starting a new process in         MPEG which 
>could not be complete for some time. It immediately         excludes the 
>possibility that the specification could be used by         W3C as is.
>
>
>What I proposed in my text is significantly different from         asking MPEG 
>simply to follow their existing process. I suggested         to "request           
>MPEG           member companies to make clear whether and under what terms           
>the specification           would be suitable for adoption by W3C, given the 
>above           policy."
>
>
>i.e. to explicitly ask them to look at the W3C policy and         state whether 
>the terms they offer could be compatible with         that. It is possible that 
>companies are able to offer terms         which allow the goals of that policy 
>to be met but which are         different from ticking the "Option 1" box. We 
>should at least         allow that possibility to be explored, before jumping to 
>a         formal RF process in MPEG.
>
>
>...Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Rob Glidden wrote:
>
>I think the previous version of                 paragraph 3, which asks 
>specifically about working on a                 royalty-free profile, is more on 
>point.
>>
>>MPEG members are already under obligations to disclose                 patents 
>>and state whether they will license as RAND or                 RF.  The latest 
>>publicly posted call for patents                 including DASH was dated 
>>October, 2010 (N11610) and is at "Standards                   under development 
>>for which a call for patent                   statements is issued".  W3C just 
>>asking MPEG to do                 what it has already done and will do again 
>>anyway and                 request its members to do what they are already                 
>>obligated to do may be motivational to someone but is a                 do-loop.
>>
>>As an exemplar, the MPEG ad hoc group on Type-1 coding                 has a 
>>publicly announced mandate (N11842) of refining                 Type-1 (i.e. 
>>royalty free) Requirements and a publicly                    announced meeting 
>>prior to the next MPEG meeting.
>>
>>Rob 
>>
>>On 3/16/2011 8:33 AM, Mark Watson wrote: 
>>Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>Attached (doc & pdf) are some proposed changes, along the lines of my previous 
>>>comments on the 3GPP letter. Note that the "and has the goal..." text that I 
>>>added regarding the Patent Policy is taken from the Patent Policy itself: I 
>>>think it is always best with legal aspects like this just to quote, rather than 
>>>paraphrase or characterize: the legal text is usually worded the way it is for 
>>>good reasons.
>>>
>>>I didn't fully understand the fourth paragraph, or why it would be of interest 
>>>to MPEG, so I suggest to delete it. But since I didn't fully understand it I may 
>>>have missed the intent.
>>>
>>>...Mark
>>>
>
>On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:56 PM, ì´í˜„재 wrote:
>
>
>> Dear IG members,
>>>  > As we shared our common interest of single solution necessity of adaptive 
>>>streaming on the browser last Berlin. We sent liaison letter to 3GPP right after 
>>>Berlin. We will send same context to MPEG DASH scheduled to next week.
>>> I drafted from 3GPP letter and added reply to MPEG DASH intention. The 
>>>tone/content of letter is intentionally adjusted mild for initiating discussion 
>>>and get initial feedback.
>>>  > The recipient of this letter will be MPEG convener Leonardo because liaison 
>>>letter is sent from him. CCed to Iraj DASH chair.
>>> The sender of this letter will be W3C Web and TV IG chairs on behave of W3C Web 
>>>and TV IG members. Even though the recipient of the letter was W3C.
>>>  > Please feel free to comment on the draft by this weekend. Sorry for the 
>>>hurried update.
>>>  > Best regards,
>>> HJ
>>> ---------------
>>> Dear Mr. Convener and DASH experts,
>>>  > The W3C has recently launched a Web and TV Interest Group, set to identify 
>>>requirements and potential solutions to ensure that the Web will function well 
>>>with TV.
>>>  > During the second W3C Web and TV workshop, held in Berlin on 8-9 February 
>>>2011, it came to our attention that many participants of the workshop are 
>>>interested in getting single solution of adaptive streaming on the browser. One 
>>>of the potential possibilities is DASH. As a result, Web and TV Interest 
>>>Group(IG) co-chairs would like to convey this interest from workshop 
>>>participants and IG members to MPEG DASH experts, and to inquire about the 
>>>licensing status of DASH. W3C has a strict royalty-free patent policy on the 
>>>technologies that get adopted as core Web technologies.
>>>  > We would very much appreciate if you could inform us of the current status 
>>>of the specification of DASH and the possibility to work together on a royalty 
>>>free profile of the specification for potential integration of DASH as adaptive 
>>>streaming mechanism for audio and video in HTML.
>>>  > As we see MPEG DASH is general enabler architectural framework for a 
>>>starting point. Adaptive streaming for Web and TV specific discussion (for 
>>>example, profiling from DASH, when DASH is chosen as baseline) would better be 
>>>placed in the special working group from Web and TV activity.
>>>  > MPEG DASH experts willing to discuss the topic with participants of the Web 
>>>and TV Interest Group may use the public public-web-and-tv@w3.org mailing-list, 
>>>whose archives are publicly available at:
>>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/ >  > Companies and 
>>>individuals willing to know more about W3C and W3C process may get in touch with 
>>>Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> and Kazuyuki Ashimura <kaz@w3.org>, W3C staff 
>>>contacts for the Web and TV Interest Group.
>>>  > Best regards,
>>>  > Yosuke, Giuseppe, Mashahito, HJ (chairs of W3C Web and TV IG)
>>> On behalf of the W3C Web and TV IG members.
>>>  > ---------------
>>>  >  >  
>

Received on Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:01:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 March 2011 23:01:39 GMT