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: Thomas Stockhammer <stockhammer@nomor.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:54:22 +0100
Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "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>
Message-Id: <DB9DE8E1-7799-4DF3-B890-DF9464922B12@nomor.de>
To: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
Maybe this works, but it may also be that we are back to a text ticker for the champions league final!

No video, no audio, just subtitles! It is not as trivial, but it is also not as complex to get things going. I don't think that we can expect that official communication between SDOs can solve this issue. However, I have confidence that the relevant players can be resolve these issues, if SDOs give them the opportunity to do so. So let's be more positive. I support the approach proposed by Mark, Ali and others.

Thomas


On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:41 PM, Rob Glidden wrote:

> 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; watsonm@netflix.com; rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net
>>>> Cc: hj08.lee@lge.com; 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>
>>>> To: juhani.huttunen@nokia.com; watsonm@netflix.com; rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net
>>>> Cc: hj08.lee@lge.com; 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] On Behalf Of
>>>>> juhani.huttunen@nokia.com
>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:45 AM
>>>>> To: watsonm@netflix.com; rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net
>>>>> Cc: hj08.lee@lge.com; public-web-and-tv@w3.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am supporting Mark’s 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> ****************************************
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: 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
>>>>> 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> 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 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 <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, 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 < <mailto:fd@w3.org> fd@w3.org> and Kazuyuki Ashimura < <mailto:kaz@w3.org> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

---
Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89 978980 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com
Nomor Research GmbH  -  Sitz der Gesellschaft: München - Registergericht: München, HRB 165856 – Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - Geschäftsführer: Dr. Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering.
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 20:55:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:02 UTC