WebRTC Video Processing and Codec Requirements
draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-01-29
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-01-20
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-01-06
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-12-20
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2015-12-17
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.ad@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-video@ietf.org, turners@ieca.com, draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.shepherd@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-09-23
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2015-07-23
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-06-18
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-06-16
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-06-16
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2015-06-16
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-06-15
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2015-06-15
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-06-15
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-06-15
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-06-15
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-06-15
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-06-15
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-06-12
|
06 | Adam Roach | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-06-12
|
06 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-06.txt |
2015-06-11
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-06-11
|
05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-06-11
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-06-10
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-06-10
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-06-10
|
05 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-06-10
|
05 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-06-10
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-06-10
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-06-10
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-06-09
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this, it is well written and easy to read. (It easily hides all the gnashing-of-teeth that went into it.) I've got … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this, it is well written and easy to read. (It easily hides all the gnashing-of-teeth that went into it.) I've got just a couple of minor comments: -- section 3: "the video scan pattern for video codecs is Y’CbCr 4:2:0." At the risk of stepping way outside my expertise, I've generally heard that referred to as a (sub)sampling ratio. Is this talking about something different? -- 6.2, "max-mbps,..." Odd vertical spacing. |
2015-06-09
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-06-09
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-06-09
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Thank you for producing this document. I'm only mildly familiar with this level of detail, and the document was clear, with pointers when … [Ballot comment] Thank you for producing this document. I'm only mildly familiar with this level of detail, and the document was clear, with pointers when I needed them. I'm honored to ballot Yes. I did have one question. In this text: Implementations MAY send and act upon "User data registered by Rec. ITU-T T.35" and "User data unregistered" messages. Even if they do not act on them, implementations MUST be prepared to receive such messages without any ill effects. Is that a usual thing to say? Perhaps it is, but I thought that might be understood. |
2015-06-09
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-06-09
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Thank you for producing this document. I'm only mildly familiar with this level of detail, and the document was clear, with pointers when … [Ballot comment] Thank you for producing this document. I'm only mildly familiar with this level of detail, and the document was clear, with pointers when I needed them. I'm honored to ballot Yes. I did have one question. In this text: Implementations MAY send and act upon "User data registered by Rec. ITU-T T.35" and "User data unregistered" messages. Even if they do not act on them, implementations MUST be prepared to receive such messages without any ill effects. Is that a usual thing to say? Perhaps it is, but I thought that might be undertood. |
2015-06-09
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-06-08
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-06-08
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] I do wonder that the Abstract and Introduction are both short, and, yet, give such different descriptions of the document as to make … [Ballot comment] I do wonder that the Abstract and Introduction are both short, and, yet, give such different descriptions of the document as to make it look like two different documents. Given how short they are, perhaps it really is best to make them the same, no? Abstract: This specification provides the requirements and considerations for WebRTC applications to send and receive video across a network. It specifies the video processing that is required, as well as video codecs and their parameters. Introduction: This specification defines how the video is used and discusses special considerations for processing the video. It also covers the video- related algorithms WebRTC devices need to support. |
2015-06-08
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-06-03
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot has been issued |
2015-06-03
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-06-03
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-06-03
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-06-03
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-06-03
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-06-01
|
05 | Pearl Liang | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-05-28
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang. |
2015-05-26
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-05-26
|
05 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-05-24
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Telechat date has been changed to 2015-06-11 from 2015-05-28 |
2015-05-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Revised Last Call: (WebRTC Video Processing and … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Revised Last Call: (WebRTC Video Processing and Codec Requirements) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document: - 'WebRTC Video Processing and Codec Requirements' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-06-03. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. This document contains a normative reference to an informational RFC: RFC 6386 Abstract This specification provides the requirements and considerations for WebRTC applications to send and receive video across a network. It specifies the video processing that is required, as well as video codecs and their parameters. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-05-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from In Last Call |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-05-15
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
2015-05-15
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
2015-05-15
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2015-05-15
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2015-05-14
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2015-05-14
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2015-05-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-05-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (WebRTC Video Processing and Codec … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (WebRTC Video Processing and Codec Requirements) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document: - 'WebRTC Video Processing and Codec Requirements' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-05-28. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification provides the requirements and considerations for WebRTC applications to send and receive video across a network. It specifies the video processing that is required, as well as video codecs and their parameters. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-05-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-05-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-05-13
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-05-28 |
2015-05-13
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
2015-05-13
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-05-13
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-05-13
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2015-05-13
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-05-13
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Sean Turner | This document now replaces draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec instead of None |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Sean Turner | 1. Summary The abstract does a wonderful job of explaining what this draft is about: This specification provides the requirements and considerations for … 1. Summary The abstract does a wonderful job of explaining what this draft is about: This specification provides the requirements and considerations for WebRTC applications to send and receive video across a network. It specifies the video processing that is required, as well as video codecs and their parameters. As far as where you should point your fingers: - Sean Turner is the document shepherd. - Alissa Cooper is the responsible Area Director. 2. Review and Consensus I’d characterize discussions about this draft as a lengthy, lively, and spirited and that’s putting it mildly, but I also think if Chuck were representative of this then this meme would sum it up:http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/58865172.jpg. There has easily been in excess of 1,000 email messages about this draft and this draft has been discussed at many f2f meetings (IETF 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88) before the WG consciously decided to take an entire year off from discussing it before re-engaging around the IETF 91 timeframe. From the start, VP8 and H.264 were the front runners though H.261, H.263, Theora, and Motion JPEG were also considered. From the 10,000 foot level, the draw to H.264 was its widespread support and the draw to VP8 was its BSD-like license and irrevocable free patent license on its bitstream format. Of course, VP8 was shown to be widely supported and the IPR “freeness” of VP8 was questioned (discussed in response to question #3 below). And, H.264’s widespread support was attacked based on the number of profiles and H.264’s licensing cost was described as “low”. Of course, the topic that dominated the discussion was IPR. But, from the start everybody that this was going to be the case so there’s text to address it in the charter, i.e., there’s the possibly that an IPR-encumbered solution might be selected. See Section 3 for more on IPR issues. Lest you think that the entire debate was about IPR, early on technical topics included video quality and performance as well as status of VP8 standardization, which BTW is moving its way through ISO. None of these topics however were interesting enough to maintain the WG's attention while the IPR debated raged. As far as the consensus process goes, there were actually three attempts at reaching consensus. The first attempt did not result in WG consensus. After the 1st attempt failed, the WG explored an alternative decision making process (the 2nd attempt), which also was fodder for the IETF discussion list, based on this msghttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html. This too didn’t result in WG consensus but a couple of important topics did fall out: 1) it helped enumerate more options (i.e., it wasn’t just H.264 vs VP8) and 2) confirmed that the WG did in fact want to decide on an MTI codec. Leading up to IETF 91, the chairs proposed a series of physical and vocal calisthenics, which can be found here:http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13358.html, that we thought would help the WG reach consensus (i.e., third time being the charm and all). But, Adam took the wind out of our sails with his so called “novel proposal", which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html. Based on list support for the proposal we modified our questions to refer to Adam’s text prior to the meeting. So at the 2nd RTCWeb session @ IETF 91 we had presentations from the draft author on the compromise text and from the VP8 and H.264 “camps” in support of the compromise. Then, we had an open mic session followed by some hums. The rough consensus in the room was to adopt the comprise text but there were some objections raised and I pointed these out in the message sent to the mailing list confirming the room’s consensus:http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html. After the allotted time elapsed (and a few hundred more emails), I determined that the consensus in the room was confirmed. I’ll note that during the second WG consensus attempt, I purposely requested that the other two chairs step down from the podium and I, along with some help from my ADs, made the consensus call and it was later confirmed on the list. I do not believe there is need for special attention from any directorate beyond the normal directorate reviews this draft will receive during the IETF LC. 3. Intellectual Property Note: Because IPR concerns were discussed so frequently, Scott Brander presented the IETF’s IPR rules (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-rtcweb-3.pdf). The following is the answer I got when I queried Adam about the IPR: <-- I have disclosed all IPR that I am required to under section 6.6 of BCP 79 (i.e., none). In the interest of full disclosure: although they do not cross the threshold of requirements under section 6.6; and, in fact, are so nebulous as to be nearly meaningless to report under section 6.1.3, there are three matters that I will point out for the sake of completeness. Due to statements made at the microphone in Toronto, I am aware that there is possibly a patent or patent application covering the CVO technique cited in the video draft. I have not taken steps to verify these statements, and no disclosure has been filed against the draft on the topic. Although no disclosures have been filed against the video draft on the topic, the fact that H.264 has patent encumbrances is widely accepted within the industry. Although most claimants guard the purported patent numbers as trade secrets, I do note that the following declarations are asserted against the H.264 RTP format required by the video document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/485/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/502/ Although no disclosures have been filed against the video draft on the topic, the fact that VP8 has patent encumbrances is widely accepted within the industry, although the number and identity of companies holding relevant IPR is a matter of heated debate. I do note that the following declaration is asserted against the VP8 RTP format required by the video document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1622/ And the following declaration is asserted against the corresponding bitstream: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1571/ --> Cullen pointed out that the MPEG LA patent list is available. You can search for "MPEG LA patent list" and get a link. 4. Other Points ***DOWNREF ALERT***: RFC 6386 is a DOWNREF. Please make sure to explicitly note this in the IETF LC and add it to the DOWNREF registry. There are no requests of IANA in this document. There are normative references to two IETF drafts, I-D.ietf-payload-vp8 and I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview; the VP8 draft has been submitted the IESG for publication (i.e., it’s on Ben’s plate); the RTCWeb overview draft will be progressing immediately before this draft or at the same time (i.e., there’s no crazy dependancies here). Note that unlike many overview drafts this draft is standards track so there’ll be no downref issue. There are normative references to specifications from ITU, IEC, and 3GPP but all are standards so there’s no concern about downrefs. There may have been more messages sent about this 9-page draft than there are alphanumeric characters in it. |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Sean Turner | State Change Notice email list changed to draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.ad@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-video@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, turners@ieca.com, draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.shepherd@ietf.org |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Sean Turner | Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Sean Turner | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Sean Turner | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Sean Turner | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Sean Turner | Changed document writeup |
2015-03-19
|
05 | Naveen Khan | New revision available |
2015-03-19
|
04 | Ted Hardie | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-02-27
|
04 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-02-13
|
04 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-04.txt |
2014-11-25
|
03 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03.txt |
2014-10-27
|
02 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-02.txt |
2014-10-27
|
01 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-01.txt |
2014-07-02
|
00 | Sean Turner | Document shepherd changed to Sean Turner |
2014-07-02
|
00 | Cullen Jennings | Document shepherd changed to Sean Turner |
2014-07-01
|
00 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-00.txt |