W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Re : Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:31:19 +0900
Message-ID: <4D87DFC7.1020004@w3.org>
To: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>, gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk
CC: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org>
Hi Rob, Gerald and all,

Right.  It seems there was some trouble with the W3C email server
and HJ's update was not archived.  Therefore I completely mistook
Mark's attached draft was the latest one.  Sorry...

Thanks for pointing out that, Rob and Gerald!  HJ's latest version
should have appeared right before Mark's message at:

And thanks to Gerald, it's now available at:

I've skimmed the above latest version, and my comments actually
remain the same:
- looks fine to me
- would ask Yosuke and Masahito for opinions
- my email address should be <ka@w3.org> or <ashimrua@w3.org>

BTW, it seems there is another problem with CSS for the archive, and
Rob's edit (removing "if possible" from "and, if possible, under what
terms") was broken.  His edit actually should be:
New: We would very much appreciate if you could inform us of the
current status  of the specification of DASH, the possibility to
work together on adaptive streaming mechanism for audio and video
in HTML and under what terms the specification would be suitable for
this cooperative work.

I don't have strong opinion about that edit, though :)



On 03/22/2011 07:49 AM, Rob Glidden wrote:
> Kazuyuki:
> Your note [1] below is incorrect, that refers to an an old version. Mark,
>  HJ, and Gerard (and myself) are referring to HJ's new version at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Mar/0091.html
> The confusion seems to be caused by a problem at the W3C archive, which
>resulted in the .ccs getting the email but not the alias itself.
> Rob
> On 3/21/2011 2:22 PM, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
>> Hi Mark and all,
>> Thank you so much for putting this letter together! And I am very
>> sorry I could not respond to you earlier due to the terrible
>> earthquakes etc...
>> Your generated draft [1] looks great to me and it seems both HJ
>> and Giuseppe are happy with it, but I still would like feedback
>> from Yosuke and Masahito, the other co-Chairs of the IG, as well.
>> I do not think they strongly object to this text, though. I will
>> ask them to respond to you on the list.
>> Regarding the legal contact, it should be Rigo Wenning, <rigo@w3.org>,
>> as Francois mentioned in his message, but I personally think it should
>> be OK at the moment to put Francois and myself as the initial contact
>> for that point as well.
>> BTW, I just want a minor editorial change on my email address.
>> Unfortunately, <kaz@w3.org> is reserved for one of my old team mates,
>> and so it would be appreciated if you could use <ka@w3.org> or
>> <ashimura@w3.org> instead.
>> # Sorry I was not aware of that error when we sent the letter to 3GPP...
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Mar/att-0029/W3C_MPEG_Letter__mw_.pdf
>> Thanks,
>> Kazuyuki
>> On 03/22/2011 05:02 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
>>> HJ,
>>> Not sure if your email went to the list. It's not in the archive.
>>> I am fine with your proposed text. I would suggest adding a legal contact: Francois mentioned a name in his email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Mar/0042.html
>>> ...Mark
>>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:05 PM, 이현재 wrote:
>>>> Dear IG members and interested participants,
>>>> Thanks for the active discussion so far.
>>>> I tried to merge majority opinion for better correspondence.
>>>> It might still be unsatisfactory to some opinion, however, please accept this as the starting between the two important standard bodies.
>>>> If there are no serious concern on this version, I'll send it to MPEG around Tuesday.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> HJ
>>>> Hyeonjae Lee
>>>> DTV Research Lab,
>>>> LG Electronics, Seoul, Korea
>>>> Office : +82-2-2102-0234
>>>> Mobile: +82-10-3388-9783
>>>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>>>> From :public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
>>>> To : Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com <mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>>
>>>> Cc : Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org <mailto:slhomme@matroska.org>>, Ali C. Begen \(abegen\) <abegen@cisco.com <mailto:abegen@cisco.com>>, Gerard Fernando <gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk <mailto:gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk>>,juhani.huttunen@nokia.com <mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>, 이현재 수석연구원 (hj08.lee),public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
>>>> Date : 11/3/20 6:43:14
>>>> Subject : Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison
>>>> As a RAND standard, DASH seems entirely above-board, with its references, wordings, months-long patent calls and so forth. I for one see no fault in the prospect of a RAND result from a RAND process, that's the idea after all.
>>>> But for royalty-free "hopes" to be shunted to parsing whether "indispensible" means "essential", proving negatives, breath-holding, "believing" etc etc, all while any official process is delayed ...
>>>> ... yes, even too-slick by half. Unhappiness warranted, just misplaced. There is every right and reason to expect ISO (and W3C) to support royalty-free work along lines:
>>>> When you begin, don't put it in.
>>>> When in doubt, throw it out.
>>>> When you're done, recheck with everyone.
>>>> Rob
>>>> On 3/19/2011 10:50 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 10:24 AM, "Rob Glidden"<rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> ISO disclosure obligations are clearly documented at
>>>>>> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/29w7proc.htm. Short incomplete
>>>>>> summary: proposers, preparers and liaisons "shall", participants
>>>>>> "should", non-participants "may", multiple other shalls and shall nots.
>>>>>> Slickly-worded AFAIKs to the contrary, DASH as-is has multiple
>>>>>> patent-disclosed normative references (and outstanding patent call).
>>>>> I'm sorry, but I am not trying to deceive anyone here and I'm not especially happy with that accusation.
>>>>> Can you tell me a single disclosed essential patent on DASH itself ? Of course, if you use it with H.264 or other codecs or containers with patents of their own then you will be subject to those. And of course the DASH specification has normative references to those things, but they are not essential to DASH.
>>>>> The technology actually in the DASH specification for manifest formats isn't yet subject to any patent disclosures that I have am aware of and I would expect to be aware of them. I qualify my statements only because I am not a lawyer and this is all legally sensitive stuff.
>>>>>> For one, the UK Intellectual Property Office offers a freedom-to-operate
>>>>>> search service, but there are many private services.
>>>>>> "[G]ood reasons to hope for an outcome" and
>>>>>> "requirements/recommendations should be reasonable and also provide a
>>>>>> basis for discussion/negotiation and not require a yes/no answer" look
>>>>>> like code for a belief that W3C should bend its royalty-free policy. I
>>>>>> disagree.
>>>>> Well, just to be clear, am not proposing any change to that policy. My proposed text to MPEG asks companies explicitly whether they offer terms such that DASH could be used given the W3C policy. I just don't think that necessarily implies a formal option 1 process at this stage.
>>>>> ...Mark
>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>> On 3/19/2011 2:54 AM, Steve Lhomme wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Mark Watson<watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> There are no known patents AFAIK. If someone turns up with a solid patent
>>>>>>>> and insists they deserve royalties for it, then I've no doubt it will be
>>>>>>>> profiled out. But we are nowhere close to that yet and it's unlikely anyway
>>>>>>>> for the reasons I've described. We should not assume we are in that
>>>>>>>> situation unless and until we actually get there, that is all.
>>>>>>>> ...Mark
>>>>>>> If I find such a patent, should I disclose it ? And even if there is
>>>>>>> none known as of today, what is the guarantee there won't be one
>>>>>>> published tomorrow ? In which case the patent holder may well seek
>>>>>>> retribution from a booming business. Among the companies/organisations
>>>>>>> there will be those who can afford to pay anyway, and those who can't
>>>>>>> and will have to abandon the technology and still being threatened for
>>>>>>> having used it in the past, and leave the market to those who can
>>>>>>> afford.
>>>>>>> What are the guarantees that this cannot happen ? Is the MPEG, 3GPP
>>>>>>> and/or W3C responsible for doing a deep patent search to make sure it
>>>>>>> can be declared royalty free ?
>>>>>>> Side Note: shouldn't it be a service provided by patent offices anyway ?
>>>> <W3C to MPEG DASH Liaison.docx>

Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170
Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 23:33:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:04 UTC