[video-codec] BoF request: video-codec - Internet Video Codec
"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org> Mon, 24 September 2012 20:56 UTC
Return-Path: <tterribe@xiph.org>
X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CAEE1F0C5C for <video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.177
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hmcMuqJDBohV for <video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx1.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C881F041D for <video-codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.250.6.54] (corp-240.mv.mozilla.com [63.245.220.240]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx1.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 582D7F2609; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5060C8F4.8050200@xiph.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:56:20 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120626 SeaMonkey/2.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: video-codec@ietf.org
Subject: [video-codec] BoF request: video-codec - Internet Video Codec
X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list <video-codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/video-codec>
List-Post: <mailto:video-codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:56:24 -0000
The proposers would like to request a 2-hour slot for a BoF at IETF 85 in Atlanta on the subject of standardizing a video codec. Description ----------- There are efforts underway by several groups to produce a next-generation, royalty-free (RF) video codec, including VPnext by Google [1,2] and Daala by Mozilla/Xiph.Org [3]. While far from complete, we hope that these can become the backbone of a truly universally deployable, interactive video codec standard that is competitive with royalty-bearing offerings. These projects are just the start. Recent efforts within the MPEG LA to create an RF license for the Restricted Baseline profile of H.264, while ultimately unsuccessful, showed that there are many consumer device manufacturers that would support RF licensing for a video codec. Not all will participate in development, but even providing review, as some have agreed to do, is useful. In the CODEC WG, it was the input and feature requests from a wide range of IETF participants that led to a codec that excelled at an extremely broad range of applications. This kind of review is much easier for codecs, where there are easily-understood, measurable objectives ("everyone has two eyes"). The IETF is typically used to dealing with much thornier questions, such as, "Will this interoperate with legacy, possibly-broken implementations?" or "Is this protocol sufficiently extensible?" The success of Opus from the CODEC WG has also shown that collaboration, based on the IETF's principals of open participation, can produce better results than competition between patented technologies. The IPR rules in BCP 78 and 79 are also critical for success. They impose a duty to disclose, and require exact patent or patent application numbers, in addition to basic licensing terms. This allows participants to evaluate the risk of infringement and, if appropriate, design work arounds, in any technology adopted, and assess the cost of adopting such technology. Because it does not force participants to agree to license their patents under RF terms, it helps to encourage participation even by those opposed to such terms (instead of guaranteeing they stay away). In addition to an environment which encourages third-party disclosures, this provides much better chances of success than SDOs which have a "patent-blind" process [4] or which require blanket RF grants. [1] http://downloads.webmproject.org/ngov2012/pdf/04-ngov-project-update.pdf [2] http://downloads.webmproject.org/ngov2012/wilkins/vpnext-results.html [3] http://xiph.org/daala/ [4] http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2010-April/003769.html Details ------- The proposed working group name is videoc-codec. Conflicts to avoid: APPSAWG, AVTCORE, CLUE, CODEC, IRI, MMUSIC, PRECIS, RMCAT, RTCWEB, XMPP Expected attendance: 80 persons Does it require WebEX?: No Does it require Meetecho?: Yes BOF agenda ---------- Chair(s): Peter Saint-Andre (plus a possible TBD co-chair) Area: RAI Area directors: Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert J. Sparks Draft agenda (subject to modifications): - Note Well, logistics, agenda bash (Chairs, 5 min) - Introduction and scoping of BoF (AD, 10 min) - Goals (Chairs, 10 min) - Engineering progress to date (Google, Mozilla 20 min) - Is it reasonable to do this work at the IETF? (All, 45 min) - Charter discussion (All, 25 min) - Conclusions and next steps (Chairs/AD, 5 min) Total timeslot: 2 hours WG charter (proposed) --------------------- Internet Video Codec (video-codec) Status: Proposed Working Group Last Updated: 2012-09-24 Chair(s): TBD RAI Area Director(s): Robert J. Sparks (rjsparks@nostrum.com) Gonzalo Camarillo (Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com) RAI Area Advisor: Robert J. Sparks (rjsparks@nostrum.com) Mailing Lists: video-codec@ietf.org Description of Working Group ---------------------------- Problem Statement According to reports from developers of Internet video applications and operators of Internet video services, there is no standardized, high-quality video codec that meets all of the following three conditions: 1. Is optimized for use in interactive Internet applications. 2. Is published by a recognized standards development organization (SDO) and therefore subject to clear change control and IPR disclosure rules. 3. Can be widely implemented and easily distributed among application developers, service operators, and end users. There exist codecs that provide high quality encoding of video information, but that are not optimized for the actual conditions of the Internet; according to reports, this mismatch between design and deployment has hindered interoperability of such codecs in interactive Internet applications. There exist codecs that can be widely implemented, but were not developed under the IPR rules of any SDO; according to reports, the lack of clarity in their IPR status has hindered adoption of such codecs in Internet applications. There exist codecs that are standardized, but that cannot be widely implemented and easily distributed; according to reports, the presence of various usage restrictions (e.g., in the form of requirements to pay royalty fees, obtain a license, enter into a business agreement, or meet other special conditions imposed by a patent holder) has hindered adoption of such codecs in Internet applications. According to application developers and service operators, a video codec that meets all three of these conditions would: (1) enable protocol designers to more easily specify a mandatory-to-implement codec in their protocols and thus improve interoperability; (2) enable developers to more easily build innovative applications for the Internet; (3) enable service operators to more easily deploy affordable, high-quality video services on the Internet; and (4) enable end users of Internet applications and services to enjoy an improved user experience. Objectives The goal of this working group is to ensure the existence of a single high-quality video codec that can be widely implemented and easily distributed among application developers, service operators, and end users. At present it appears that ensuring the existence of such a codec will require a development effort within the working group. The core technical considerations for such a codec include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. Designing for use in interactive applications (examples include, but are not limited to, point-to-point video calls, multi-party video conferencing, telepresence, teleoperation, and in-game video chat). 2. Addressing the real transport conditions of the Internet, such as the flexibility to rapidly respond to changing bandwidth availability and loss rates, or as otherwise identified and prioritized by the working group. 3. Ensuring interoperability and clean integration with the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), including secure transport via SRTP. 4. Ensuring interoperability with Internet signaling technologies such as Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), Session Description Protocol (SDP), and Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP); however, the result should not depend on the details of any particular signaling technology. Optimizing for very low bit rates (typically below 64 kbps) is out of scope because such work might necessitate specialized optimizations. In addition to the technical objectives, there is one process goal, which is 5. Ensuring the work is done under the IPR rules of the IETF. Although a codec produced by this working group or another standards organization might be used as a mandatory-to-implement technology by designers of particular Internet protocols, it is explicitly not a goal of the working group to produce or select a codec that will be mandated for use across the entire IETF or Internet community nor would their be any expectation that this would be the only mandatory-to-implement codec. Based on the working group's analysis of the design space, the working group might determine that it needs to produce more than one codec, or a codec with multiple modes; however, it is not the goal of working group to produce more than one codec, and to reduce confusion in the marketplace the working group shall endeavor to produce as few codecs as possible. In completing its work, the working group should collaborate with other IETF working groups to complete particular tasks. These might include, but would not be limited to, the following: - Within the AVT WG, define the codec's payload format for use with the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP). - Collaborate with RMCAT and any other appropriate working groups in the Transport Area to identify important aspects of packet transmission over the Internet. - Collaborate with RMCAT to understand the degree of rate adaptation desirable, and to reflect that understanding in the design of a codec that can adjust its transmission in a way that minimizes disruption to the video. - Collaborate with working groups in the RAI Area to ensure that information about and negotiation of the codec can be easily represented at the signaling layer. - Collaborate with working groups in the RAI Area such as CLUE and RTCWEB to ensure the codec can satisfy all of their video-related use cases. The working group will coordinate with the ITU-T (Study group 16) and ISO/IEC (JTC1/SC29 WG11), with the intent of submitting the completed codec RFC for co-publication if they find that appropriate. The working group will communicate a detailed description of the requirements and goals to other SDOs including the ITU-T and MPEG to help determine if existing codecs meet the requirements and goals. Information about codecs being standardized will be available to other SDOs in the form of Internet-Drafts and the working group welcomes technical feedback from other SDOs and experts from other organizations. The Guidelines for Development of an Audio Codec within the IETF (RFC 6569) will form the starting point for guidelines and requirements for achieving the forgoing objectives for video. The working group will modify them as necessary with lessons learned during that process, refining them into a new document in accordance with the usual IETF procedures once consensus has been achieved. A codec that can be widely implemented and easily distributed among application developers, service operators, and end users is preferred. Many existing codecs that might fulfill some or most of the technical attributes listed above are encumbered in various ways. For example, patent holders might require that those wishing to implement the codec in software, deploy the codec in a service, or distribute the codec in software or hardware need to request a license, enter into a business agreement, pay licensing fees or royalties, or attempt to adhere to other special conditions or restrictions. Because such encumbrances have made it difficult to widely implement and easily distribute high-quality video codecs across the entire Internet community, the working group prefers unencumbered technologies in a way that is consistent with BCP 78 and BCP 79. In particular, the working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The working group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adopting encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties or other encumbrances that would prevent such technologies from being easy to redistribute and use. Deliverables 1. A set of Codec Standardization Guidelines that define the work processes of the working group. This document shall be Informational. 2. A set of technical Requirements. This document shall be Informational. 3. Specification of a codec that meets the agreed-upon requirements, in the form of an Internet-Draft that defines the codec algorithm along with source code for a reference implementation. The text description of the codec shall describe the mandatory, recommended, and optional portions of the encoder and decoder. It is envisioned that this document shall be a Proposed Standard document. 4. Specification of a storage format for non-interactive (HTTP) streaming or file transfer of the codec. It is envisioned that this document shall be a Proposed Standard document. Goals and Milestones TBD WGLC on codec standardization guidelines TBD WGLC on requirements, liaise to other SDOs TBD Requirements to IESG (Informational) TBD Liaise requirements RFC to other SDOs TBD Codec standardization guidelines to IESG (Informational) TBD WGLC on codec specification, liaise to other SDOs TBD Submit codec specification to IESG (Standards Track) TBD WGLC on storage format specification TBD Submit storage format specification to IESG (Standards Track) TBD WGLC on Testing document TBD Testing document to IESG
- [video-codec] BoF request: video-codec - Internet… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [video-codec] BoF request: video-codec - Inte… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [video-codec] BoF request: video-codec - Inte… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [video-codec] BoF request: video-codec - Inte… Robert Sparks