A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb)
Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 10:57 UTC
Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CB51AE337 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:57:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4iWKyuYcsE9S for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA1D1AD9AD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:57:16 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-bd-52a1ad88ac38
Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D9.27.27941.88DA1A25; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:57:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.126.190] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:57:11 +0100
Message-ID: <52A1AD87.1000706@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:57:11 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb)
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW7H2oVBBs93q1o82zifxWLOrgdM DkweS5b8ZPL4cvkzWwBTFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfGte9PGAtOS1dMuHeBsYFxhlgXIyeHhICJ xL59N9kgbDGJC/fWA9lcHEICRxglDs57xwqSEBJYwyjx4qAKiM0roC1x4u0EsAYWARWJSZf7 wWrYBCwktty6zwJiiwpESZw/95IJol5Q4uTMJ2BxEQFliUdTz4P1MgsoSSz+9QasV1ggXOJh dxsTxC5tiZ17N4PZnAI6Epu23gOq5wA6TlyipzEIolVPYsrVFkYIW15i+9s5zDCty5+1sExg FJqFZPMsJC2zkLQsYGRexchRnFqclJtuZLCJERiqB7f8ttjBePmvzSFGaQ4WJXHej2+dg4QE 0hNLUrNTUwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwZh+qeqPOOcFq2Zz1Rw/sZbWwqwrcXX19k7+xosKC qS+/FzBt+7uH8W/zPw2Rk6eYJ+2Kj4i8du/ExMl/VN55CmX+vvGvtHvCKyHW7KcTPp14vejq 5bLjGTfdyjJ3cBfcPFt0ySLj6o7GsKehHUcke0U+7a1aNNfvx02ddTI6TvNnC65znydkb6rE UpyRaKjFXFScCABGHWWSIwIAAA==
Cc: rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:57:20 -0000
Hi, I want to thank everybody for all the input on this issue. Let me address a few of the points that have been brought up during the discussions. People seem to have different views on which processes MUST be used at the IETF when developing documents, which ones MAY be used, and which ones MUST NOT be used. Given the strong disagreements we have seen, it may be useful to agree on a set of guidelines and document them at some point. In the mean time, let me clarify how the RTCWeb WG (or at least some people in that community) interpret the IETF process. The view a part of the RTCWeb community shares is the following: Documents MUST go through both a WGLC and an IETF LC where the community needs to reach rough consensus on them. That is, per standard IETF processes, documents that reach rough consensus at those stages are progressed while documents that don't reach rough consensus are *not* progressed. In summary: proposals are evaluated first by the WG and then by the IETF community as a whole using a consensus mechanism. Where people seem to disagree, often strongly, is on how proposals that will be put forward for such evaluation by the WG and the IETF community can be generated. Some people think that processes that are somewhat related to voting MUST NOT be used within a WG at all. Other people think that using processes such as straw polls or some types of voting can help the WG understand better the situation at hand and help build consensus, which will be *ultimately* evaluated in the WGLC and IETF LCs on the document. In short, some people think that the important fact is that documents need to reach consensus at the WGLC and IETF LC stages. Before that, one could use different processes if they are likely to help building that consensus. Other people disagree. My personal opinion is that both interpretations above have some merit and should be discussed within the IETF community, which will sure face difficult situations like this one in the future again. Future WG chairs will benefit from more clarity on these issues. On a related note, there have been some comments about the RTCWeb chairs effectively attacking the IETF principles. I think those comments are unfair. We are talking about three former ADs in different areas all of whom have made significant contributions to the IETF community along many years. They understand the situation at hand and are trying to actively propose alternatives to resolve a difficult and important issue. Let's discuss which interpretation of the IETF process the community agrees more with (per the points above) instead of judging people for interpreting the rules differently in an area that is, arguably, not completely clear. With respect to the decision about the MTI video codec at the RTCWeb WG, the chairs will be proposing a way forward (taking into account all the input received) shortly. Cheers, Gonzalo On 28/11/2013 11:17 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Folks, > > as you may know, the RTCWeb WG is trying to select a > mandatory-to-implement video codec. So far, the WG has been unable to > reach consensus using traditional consensus calls. Now, the WG is > considering alternative options to make that decision. > > If you are interested in following that discussion on the RTCWeb list, > this would be a good place to start: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo >
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Jari Arkko
- Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eliot Lear
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative … Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eliot Lear
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Rescorla
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Lemon
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Sam Hartman
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Rescorla
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Cullen Jennings
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Lemon
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Melinda Shore
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Tim Bray
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Yoav Nir
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Michael Richardson
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Lemon
- RE: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Bernard Aboba
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Roberto Peon
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Stephan Wenger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Roger Jørgensen
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Melinda Shore
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ofer Inbar
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb cb.list6
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Hardie
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Melinda Shore
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Paul Hoffman
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Hardie
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Avri Doria
- RE: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Mary Barnes
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Ron
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb cb.list6
- Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decision p… Eric Burger
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… cb.list6
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Mary Barnes
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Carsten Bormann
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Pete Resnick
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Jari Arkko
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Dave Crocker
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Sam Hartman
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Sam Hartman
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Martin Thomson
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ofer Inbar
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Eric Burger
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Jim Gettys
- 0, 1, or many standards and their impact (or not) Eliot Lear
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Hector Santos
- Re: 0, 1, or many standards and their impact (or … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Jari Arkko
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Eric Burger
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… David Singer
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Eliot Lear
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Dave Crocker
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Timothy B. Terriberry