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 15:20:20 -0700
Message-ID: <4D83DAA4.40502@sbcglobal.net>
To: Thomas Stockhammer <stockhammer@nomor.de>
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>
So from what you say, DASH as-is is heavily encumbered, and until 
resolved neither RF spec nor profile is viable.

W3C policy is clearly royalty-free and there are stakeholders favoring a 
royalty-free result, encouraging patent holders to come forward with RF 
declarations.

I don't think any of the proposed wordings are intended to imply that 
W3C's royalty-free IPR policy is anything but reasonable.

So all the more reason to just remove the known patents until a 
royalty-free grant is obtained.

Rob

On 3/18/2011 2:38 PM, Thomas Stockhammer wrote:
> Mark, Rob, Ali, all,
>
> Disclaimer: This is a purely personal opinion and does not reflect any 
> opinions of any companies I am representing.
>
> There is a significant interest to create an ecosystem around 
> OTT/Internet/HTTP-based streaming by many relevant players in the 
> market, smaller and bigger ones. On piece in the puzzle is the 
> necessity and opportunity to create confidence for content providers 
> and users that converging and widely accepted technology exists. 
> Therefore, a single standard is a great opportunity and history has 
> proven that single world-wide accepted standards are incubators for 
> great business (look at GSM, WiFi, HTML, H.264, etc.). From my 
> experience working in this area over the last couple of years, the 
> vast majority of the contributors are interested in creating this 
> ecosystem and confidence. The concrete business opportunities for 
> these contributors are not in royalties, but in providing products, 
> services, content, etc. based on these formats and still have the 
> ability to differentiate in other areas. In the end, the user does not 
> care how champions league final or the latest block buster is 
> delivered, but they are interested that they have access to the 
> content anytime/anywhere and the quality/user experience is 
> acceptable/good/great, just as good as possible.
>
> I am confident that royalties will not be the blocking point in the 
> acceptance of DASH as a world-wide standard. However, it does not make 
> any sense to push a question at another SDO for which the SDO can only 
> answer according to their IPR policy. If, however, the communication 
> is such that the member companies themselves have some basis to react 
> and also have a contact person they can talk to in case they have 
> questions, then there is a great opportunity to resolve the concerns 
> of the interested players. IPR policies are important, but they are 
> not the holy grail and are just one piece in the puzzle to create 
> successful ecosystems. Again, I support that the interested companies 
> in W3C communicate their requirements/recommendations for adopting 
> DASH, but these requirements/recommendations should be reasonable and 
> also provide a basis for discussion/negotiation and not require a 
> yes/no answer.
>
> Let's be more positive and let's stimulate communication
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 7:02 PM, 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 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 <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 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 <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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---
> Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de 
> <mailto: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 22:21:15 UTC

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