Re: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Okay, works for me.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Aug 28, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> If we think we can close this as not a real issue (or at least not an issue we
>> plan to address), but there's some risk it might come back up at IETF LC, then
>> that's fine. But if we are saying there is an open issue that needs closure,
>> but we can close it during IETF last call, then I have reservations. The
>> version that goes to IETF LC should be one that the working group believes to
>> be as complete is it's going to get.
> 
> In private discussion, both Harald and I favored saying less (rather than more)
> about RMCAT in this DART draft.  For that reason I think "at least not
> an issue we plan to address" is a valid characterization of this item.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 3:44 PM
>> To: Black, David; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward
>> 
>> (as chair)
>> 
>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> [E] Open issue: Harald Alvestrand's concerns about "differential treatment"
>>> wrt Section 5.1 .  I don't completely understand these concerns, and suspect
>>> that they may require an email discussion across the DART and RMCAT WGs
>>> to sort through.
>>> 
>>> --> Deferred - Harald wanted to think about this, and I've seen nothing
>>> --> further.  I'd suggest that IETF Last Call as an appropriate opportunity
>>> --> to share any further thoughts, so I don't think there's anything to be
>> done
>>> --> about this now.
>> 
>> I have mixed feelings on this.
>> 
>> If we think we can close this as not a real issue (or at least not an issue we
>> plan to address), but there's some risk it might come back up at IETF LC, then
>> that's fine. But if we are saying there is an open issue that needs closure,
>> but we can close it during IETF last call, then I have reservations. The
>> version that goes to IETF LC should be one that the working group believes to
>> be as complete is it's going to get.
>> 
>> David, thoughts?
>> 
>> Harald, do you care to comment further?