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: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:19:15 -0700
To: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
CC: 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F7851EAC-7BBC-4F7B-894C-3966687AB46F@netflix.com>

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2011, at 8:46 PM, "Rob Glidden" <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net<mailto:rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:


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.



On 3/17/2011 3:49 PM, Mark Watson wrote:

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:56 PM, 이현재 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 <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org> 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/> 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 05:20:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:03 UTC