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: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:41:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4D83C382.8040201@sbcglobal.net>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: "Ali C. Begen \(abegen\)" <abegen@cisco.com>, Gerard Fernando <gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk>, "juhani.huttunen@nokia.com" <juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>, "hj08.lee@lge.com" <hj08.lee@lge.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
This completely backwards.  Just remove the known patents until a 
royalty-free grant is obtained.

Rob

On 3/18/2011 11:02 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Gerard Fernando [mailto:gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk]
>>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 1:01 PM
>>> To: Ali C. Begen (abegen); juhani.huttunen@nokia.com 
>>> <mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>; watsonm@netflix.com 
>>> <mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>; rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net 
>>> <mailto:rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
>>> Cc: hj08.lee@lge.com <mailto:hj08.lee@lge.com>; 
>>> public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison
>>>
>>> I totally disagree. No point wasting time asking a "non-pushy" 
>>> question as MPEG is likely to send back a useless answer.
>>> Better to ask a blunt question as then you are likely to get a 
>>> straightforward/clear answer.
>>>
>>> Could it be that some folks are worried by the likely answer from 
>>> MPEG - which is that DASH (in it's current state with
>>> normative references to other standards) can't be made RF that easily.
>>
>> On the contrary I am hopeful that stakeholders will come forward and 
>> say they will offer their IPRs in RF basis.
>>
>> -acbegen
>
> Agreed. Some already have.
>
> And please bear in mind the nature of the technology we are talking 
> about here. We are talking about *data formats* for a manifest and 
> media file, not client or server procedures, which are not defined by 
> DASH. The manifest concept is well established in various deployed 
> technologies and would be followed by any other adapative streaming 
> that W3C could come up with anyway.
>
> I find it hard to see how there could be any significant IPR worthy of 
> royalties that is /essential/ to this specification. That's just my 
> opinion, but I urge others to take a closer look at what we are 
> actually talking about and form their own views rather than assuming 
> that just because it's MPEG people will be expecting to make 
> significant money out of this.
>
> ...Mark
>
>
>>
>>> Gerard
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Ali C. Begen (abegen) <abegen@cisco.com <mailto:abegen@cisco.com>>
>>> To: juhani.huttunen@nokia.com <mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>; 
>>> watsonm@netflix.com <mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>; 
>>> rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net <mailto:rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
>>> Cc: hj08.lee@lge.com <mailto:hj08.lee@lge.com>; 
>>> public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
>>> Sent: Fri, 18 March, 2011 8:15:00
>>> Subject: RE: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org 
>>>> <mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org> 
>>>> [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> juhani.huttunen@nokia.com <mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:45 AM
>>>> To: watsonm@netflix.com <mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>; 
>>>> rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net <mailto:rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
>>>> Cc: hj08.lee@lge.com <mailto:hj08.lee@lge.com>; 
>>>> public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: RE: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am supporting Marks proposal (attached). That is right to the 
>>>> point of the Royalty Free question and still avoids to be
>>>> unnecessarily pushy towards MPEG.
>>>
>>> +1. Being pushy will not get us anything useful in the desired time 
>>> frame.
>>>
>>> -acbegen
>>>
>>>> The letter sent to 3GPP by Web and TV Interest Group chairs is not 
>>>> the best reference to copy as such here because that
>>>> letter was created without consulting and was not reviewed by the 
>>>> Web and TV Interest Group members before sending to
>>>> 3GPP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe that the more open-minded question in the liaison letter 
>>>> concerning MPEG DASH licensing will lead to the best
>>>> response without excluding any options.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Juhani
>>>>
>>>> ****************************************
>>>>
>>>> Juhani Huttunen
>>>>
>>>> Senior Solutions Manager
>>>>
>>>> Compatibility and Industry Collaboration, NOKIA
>>>>
>>>> Address: Keilalahdentie 2-4, 02150 Espoo, FINLAND
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: +358 40 581 1138
>>>>
>>>> e-mail: juhani.huttunen@nokia.com <mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>
>>>>
>>>> ****************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org 
>>>> <mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org> 
>>>> [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Mark Watson
>>>> Sent: 18 March, 2011 07:19
>>>> To: Rob Glidden
>>>> Cc: ???; public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 17, 2011, at 8:46 PM, "Rob Glidden" 
>>>> <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net <mailto:rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    Mark:
>>>>
>>>>    If the whole standard is RF, RF profile work won't delay anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not an a priori property of the specification. What we do, the 
>>>> options we leave open, discourage or encourage, can
>>> affect
>>>> the outcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe that there are companies that may well be able to commit 
>>>> to terms compatible with the W3C policy. But if we
>>> kick
>>>> off a formal 'RF profile' process    now it kicks the question way 
>>>> down the road and there will be no early clarity on this
>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying that early clarity is certain, but I feel now is 
>>>> exactly the wrong time to give, up as you propose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If RF profile work is delayed, then assertions (3rd party or other) 
>>>> can await opportune moment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quite the reverse. A formal RF process removes any sense of urgency 
>>>> regarding clarification of terms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Such happens.  There's never a quick fix for RF, just due diligence 
>>>> on multiple fronts.
>>>>
>>>> Original response succinctly conveys W3C's royalty-free policy, 
>>>> which shouldn't budge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The best way to convey the W3C policy is to link to it, perhaps 
>>>> with a quote. I think paraphrase/characterization is
>>> absolutely
>>>> the wrong way to convey these things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> On 3/17/2011 3:49 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rob,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand what you mean by "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.".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that by jumping immediately into a process for definition 
>>>> in MPEG of an RF profile we completely set ourselves up
>>>> for delay. Not that I think anyone will be interested in making 
>>>> that process deliberately longer than necessary, but because
>>> by
>>>> its nature it won't be fast. It's by no means certain that anyone 
>>>> has essential IPR or that if they do they will expect royalties
>>>> for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My proposal was shorter than the original & I think pretty simple 
>>>> and clear. It is more open than your proposal in terms of
>>>> the options going forward but does not exclude the option you suggest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Rob Glidden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simple, helpful and appropriate W3C response to the MPEG request to 
>>>> consider DASH profiles:
>>>>
>>>> "We would like to draw your attention particularly to DASHs 
>>>> profiles defined in DIS and would welcome W3C to provide its
>>>> needs and suggestions to improve them to better fit W3Cs 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 
>>>> <http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/hot_news.htm> ".  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
>>>> <http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/daegu11/daegu_ahg.htm> 
>>>>  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, 현재 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 <mailto: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 < <mailto:fd@w3.org> fd@w3.org <mailto:fd@w3.org>> and 
>>>> Kazuyuki Ashimura < <mailto:kaz@w3.org> kaz@w3.org 
>>>> <mailto: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 Friday, 18 March 2011 20:42:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 18 March 2011 20:42:28 GMT