H.264/AVC as Mandatory-to-Implement Video Codec for RTCweb
draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | David Benham , David Singer , Krasimir Kolarov | ||
| Last updated | 2012-10-15 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-00
RTCweb Working Group D. Benham
Internet-Draft C. Jennings
Intended status: Informational Cisco
Expires: April 18, 2013 D. Singer
K. Kolarov
Apple
October 15, 2012
H.264/AVC as Mandatory-to-Implement Video Codec for RTCweb
draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-00
Abstract
This memo proposes that H.264/AVC be selected as the mandatory-to-
implement (MTI) video codec for RTCweb due to is Adoption Advantage,
Quality-Power-Bandwidth advantage, Hardware Acceleration Advantage
and Well-established IPR Status.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Benham, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft AVC for RTCweb MTI October 2012
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. H.264/AVC Adoption Advantage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. H.264/AVC has the Quality-Power-Bandwidth advantage . . . . . . 4
5. Hardware Acceleration Advantage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Well-Established IPR Status for H.264/AVC . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Disclosed and Publicly Available Lists of Patents . . . . . 6
6.2. Royalty Free for Innovation, Low-volume shipments . . . . . 6
6.3. Higher H.264/AVC Profile Tools Bundled . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.4. Future IPR Status Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Questions about IPR Status of VP8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Benham, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft AVC for RTCweb MTI October 2012
1. Introduction
This memo offers a proposal that H.264/AVC be selected as the
mandatory-to-implement (MTI) video codec for RTCweb. This document
asserts that the constrained baseline profile is the likely best
choice and uses it to make certain points. However, the author(s)
are open to assertions that other H.264/AVC profile(s) should be
additionally mandated or recommended.
This document is not intended for publication as an RFC.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119>.
3. H.264/AVC Adoption Advantage
H.264/AVC is widely used for enterprise videoconferencing equipment
and services. High-definition (HD), web videoconferencing commonly
uses H.264/AVC as well, including Skype.
H.264/AVC is becoming the de-facto standard for the Mobile web and
3GPP has recommended the H.264/AVC [AVC01] codec along with the
mandatory H.263. Apple's iOS, Google's Android, RIM's Blackberry and
Ericsson's mobile device platforms all support H.264/AVC.
Web (entertainment) video is dominated by H.264/AVC, and increasingly
"multi-screen/BYOD" video services from cable companies and telco's
are using H.264/AVC over their private web video networks
Thus, HTML5 browsers will likely need to have the H.264/AVC codec
regardless to remain popular. Internet Explorer and Safari appear to
be including H.264/AVC in the set of codecs they ship regardless of
the RTCweb video codec MTI decision. And Google's Chrome continues
shipping with H.264/AVC today.
We assert that the lack of clearly indicating that H.264/AVC was the
mandatory video codec for HTML5's video tag has created uncertainty
and increased costs for those deploying sites or developing
applications trying to cover multiple possible codecs instead.
Mandating the H.264/AVC codec for RTCweb is in the best interest of
rapid adoption given it is already pervasive deployed and used in
real-time communications and web video applications.
Benham, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft AVC for RTCweb MTI October 2012
4. H.264/AVC has the Quality-Power-Bandwidth advantage
First, we believe that mobile devices will be important to the
success of RTCweb going forward. They generally have slower CPUs
than desktop computers and maximizing battery life is extremely
important.
Second, we assert that the three (3) most important factors to
analyze in that context are a) the user experience or perceptual
quality of the resultant video images, b) the amount of compute or
CPU power applied to do the compression - this correlates with
electrical power consumption, and c) the amount of bandwidth
available or consumed. All three factors must be considered together
as they are interrelated.
For a given bitrate, a codec can improve the quality by doing more
computation, but that will drain power quicker. While 4G/LTE brings
more bandwidth to the equation, error properties of the medium and/or
mobile data transmission costs will still put pressure on
implementers to minimize bandwidth utilized by RTCweb streams.
Throwing bandwidth at the problem is not a good assumption to improve
quality while keeping CPU power constant.
We quickly captured examples of leading H.264/AVC and VP8 products on
popular mobile and desktop platforms and came to the conclusion that
H.264 looks better than VP8 when both are run on same platform at the
same bitrates.
It is very hard in making tests to try and decide what parameters to
use for codecs in a way that does not bias tests. So instead, we
choose the "best in class" products that we could find to demonstrate
performance comparisons.
Captures of Mobile Tests;
FaceTime using H.264 on an iPhone to linphone on a fast desktop PC.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17089001/video-samples/facetime.mov
Bria using VP8 on iPhone to linphone on a fast desktop PC. http://
dl.dropbox.com/u/17089001/video-samples/iphone-vp8-vs-iphone-264.mov
Bria using VP8 on Galaxy Nexus to linphone on a fast desktop PC.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17089001/video-samples/galaxy-nexus.mov
Shown side-by-side, Bria using VP8 on iPhone (left) and FaceTime with
H.264/AVC on iPhone (right), going to linphone and FaceTime. http://
dl.dropbox.com/u/17089001/video-samples/iphone-vp8-vs-iphone-264.mov
Benham, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft AVC for RTCweb MTI October 2012
Captures of Desktop-only Tests;
FaceTime H.264/AVC from a fast notebook computer to fast desktop. htt
p://dl.dropbox.com/u/17089001/video-samples/facetime-264-desktop.mov
-or- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17089001/video-samples/
facetime-264-desktop.webm
Chrome with VP8 from same fast notebook computer to same fast
desktop.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17089001/video-samples/chrome-vp8-desktop.mov
-or- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17089001/video-samples/
chrome-vp8-desktop.webm
Two fast notebook computers - one running Chrome and the other
running Fictive - both sending to the same desktop computer shown
side by side. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17089001/video-samples/
chrome_and_factime_desktop.mov>
-or- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17089001/video-samples/
chrome_and_factime_desktop.webm
The tests and resultant captures were done on a fast wireless network
with no other traffic on the wireless network, with the exception of
the side by side demo. For the sides by side demo above, both
devices were on the same WiFi network but did not seem to be having
any losses or coming close to filling the network. The results in
the side by side seemed to be the same as when there were run
independently so we do not believe that having them both on the same
network impacted results.
Of course, these results do not preclude implementations improving in
the future, but this gives some idea of the current state of the art.
Our conclusion is that H.264/AVC is best at delivering on the
Quality-Power-Bandwidth optimization.
5. Hardware Acceleration Advantage
H.264/AVC has a several year head start on hardware/DSP optimization
and is already deployed pervasively. For handheld mobile phones,
hardware acceleration is a must to maximize Quality-Power-Bandwidth.
H.264/AVC hardware is already incredibly inexpensive. Some of the
low end consumer cameras will record H.264/AVC video, such as this
sub-100 US dollar (<$100) Powershot A810 from Cannon. [AVC07]
Benham, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft AVC for RTCweb MTI October 2012
6. Well-Established IPR Status for H.264/AVC
6.1. Disclosed and Publicly Available Lists of Patents
As typical with many standards bodies, the joint work of ITU/MPEG
that produced H.264/AVC has a common patent policy requiring
disclosure by participants and third parties of any known patents or
patent applications that may be essential to implement specifications
in development. These can be downloaded in spreadsheet format
[AVC02]. The policy goes on to ask contributors to pre-agree to
either RAND (reasonable & non-discriminatory, but may not be free) or
royalty-free licensing of their own company's patents, with or
without reciprocal requirements. There is some anecdotal evidence to
suggest US courts consider such disclosure requirements [AVC03] in
patent lawsuit decisions.
While all that alone doesn't guarantee 100% visibility of all
possible essential patent claims, H.264/AVC was finished in late 2003
and has been commercially shipping at scale for 6-7 years or more
which should have brought to light any other patent holders
interested in enforcing or collecting on their essential patents.
Over 300 patents (more if counting multiple jurisdictions) covering
mechanisms spanning several of AVC's profiles are licensed via the
MPEG LA H.264/AVC licensing program and are publicly listed [AVC04].
The risk of an unknown, essential patent appearing at this point
should be comparatively low, which would be a benefit to selecting a
H.264/AVC profile as the mandatory codec.
6.2. Royalty Free for Innovation, Low-volume shipments
To paraphrase, the MPEG LA license [AVC05] does allow up to 100K
units per year, per legal entity/company (type "a" sublicensees in
MPEG LA's definition), to be shipped for zero ($0) royalty cost.
This should be adequate for many RTCweb innovators or start-ups to
try out new implementations on a large set of users before incurring
any patent royalty costs, a benefit to selecting a H.264/AVC profile
as the mandatory codec.
6.3. Higher H.264/AVC Profile Tools Bundled
It should be noted that when one licenses the MPEG LA H.264/AVC pool
[AVC04], patents for higher profile tools - such as CABAC, 8x8 - are
bundled in with those required for the constrained baseline profile.
Thus, these could optionally be used by RTCweb implementers to
achieve even greater performance or efficiencies than using H.264
constrained baseline alone, a benefit to selecting H.264/AVC and
Benham, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft AVC for RTCweb MTI October 2012
RTCweb could also go as far as recommending those higher profiles.
6.4. Future IPR Status Consideration
For additional informative purposes, the MPEG/IEC/ISO made a call for
a royalty-free video coding solution for the Internet. As of its
98th meeting, two tracks forward are being pursued; one of which is
based on the H.264/AVC constrained baseline profile [AVC06]. MPEG is
presently collecting patent licensing declarations that would include
patent holder's royalty expectations unbundled from other higher
profile mechanisms. Should this effort result in a royalty-free
constrained baseline profile, this would benefit RTCweb in the future
if H.264/AVC is selected as mandatory today.
7. Questions about IPR Status of VP8
For the purposes of further illustrating the benefits of the well-
known IPR status of H.264/AVC, what follows are some comparisons to
the unknowns that surround VP8 as of the writing of this
contribution. Information that resolves the open questions below is
welcomed.
First, Google should be commended for offering their essential
patents on VP8 royalty-free. However, other patent holders --
including ones not licensees of VP8/WebM -- may exist as suggested by
all the respondents to MPEG LA's call for a VP8 essential patent
pool. Also, VP8 was not developed openly in a standards body and
thus subjected to the prescribed essential patent disclosures, etc.
Second, others have previously advocated that the lack of lawsuits
against shipping VP8 implementations to date means all is ok. VP8
has been shipping a shorter time compared to H.264/AVC and the finite
number of companies that have shipped it to date may have, for
example, sufficiently large patent portfolios themselves to have
discouraged others from starting such a VP8 lawsuit against them.
Bottom line is that it isn't a good argument that no prior lawsuits
are an implicit indication of low risk to future patent lawsuit for
VP8.
Benham, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft AVC for RTCweb MTI October 2012
+------------------------------------------+-------------+----------+
| Attribute | AVC | VP8 |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+----------+
| Developed Openly in Standards Body | Yes | No |
| - | | |
| Required Patent Disclosures and/or | Yes | No |
| predeclared RAND or similar licensing | | |
| promise | | |
| - | | |
| Open Source implementation | Yes | Yes |
| - | | |
| Patent Royalties | Yes for | None |
| | >100KU per | Known |
| | yr | (*) |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+----------+
Table 1: Comparison of H.264/AVC & VP8 IPR Status Impacting Features
(*) A dozen or so companies responded to MPEG LA's call for essential
patents on VP8, but a license for that has not been published and
fees that may be asked for in the future is unknown.
As suggested by Table 1, sufficient time and open, industry
development along with the prescribed patent disclosures is
beneficial to be more certain of the risks with shipping the chosen
mandatory codec.
Not having the benefit of a longer deployment duration and open,
industry development for VP8, the following questions result;
(a) Like MPEG/IEC/ISO, can Google list the present patents covered
in its VP8 license (of course it is noted that any future Google
owned essential patents are supposed to be included too)?
(b) Does Google, or anyone else involved in any patent analysis,
know of any third-parties with viable essential patent claims on
VP8? c) If any in (b), are they not a concern? Why?
(c) If any in (b), are they not a concern? Why?
(d) If Google is certain there is no concern regarding (b) & (c),
can Google provide some assurance (such as indemnification) to the
VP8 licensees and thus indirectly assuring the RTCweb working
group?
Benham, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft AVC for RTCweb MTI October 2012
8. Security Considerations
TBD.
9. IANA Considerations
None.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
10.2. Informative References
[AVC01] 3GPP, TS 26., "Packet switched conversational multimedia
applications; Default codecs", 2008,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/26235.htm>.
[AVC02] ISO, "ISO Standards and Patent\s", April 2006,
<http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/patents>.
[AVC03] US Federal Court, "QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. BROADCOM
CORPORATION", December 2008,
<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/
1150919.html>.
[AVC04] MPEG LA, "MPEG LA H.264 AVC Patent Pool - Attachment 1",
August 2012, <http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/
Documents/avc-att1.pdf>.
[AVC05] MPEG LA, "SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS", unknown, <htt
p://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/
AVC_TermsSummary.pdf>.
[AVC06] MPEG, ISO., "Working Draft 2 of ISO/IEC 14496-29 Web Video
Coding", 2012, <http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/
working_documents/mpeg-04/part29/WVC.zip>.
[AVC07] Cannon Inc, "Powershot A810 Specifications", 2012, <http://
www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/
digital_cameras/powershot_a810>.
Benham, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft AVC for RTCweb MTI October 2012
Authors' Addresses
David Benham
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
United States
Email: dbenham@cisco.com
Cullen
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
United States
Email: fluffy@cisco.com
David Singer
Apple
Email: singer@apple.com
Krasimir Kolarov
Apple
Email: kolarov@apple.com
Benham, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 10]