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. 


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.
>     >
>     > ---------------
>     >
>     >
>     >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>