IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 F2DAF1ADF26 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:10:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 BjWIYKq_U_m3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-f50.google.com (mail-vb0-f50.google.com [209.85.212.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6FC1AD945 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id 10so6262163vbe.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:10:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=TqxRimGk0zfpbuo6tMGX7wgcMLmUSdt+F7iyjlYNcho=; b=b6kuKrbguVAFfyz4ccUc6u+kI9SZ8XtNREVkFAJpmKtvPnxsFYm2J900LMVFI+pIg8 76kob5jLKYlzLk5knrNFK4Zx8ENgsizzj41vVqfftv80SU38HztpbLyHCjYErsTTfmxK o/AZBliI4w9Xbu7BmY4wiZY0W/t3ptwJGVxkZztNvqTFp08TWYeMzs7+FvOPLf9Q0Mau b6IX+lKQ0uK6DhaNStLlFVSPRLdaxY90NIPsKzY7JCXH5Ql4NGncSCbILtbXCuOS8qa6 JQrUk0T0l8pYzhnWG+bgU8qXiH6/apQWIiZ4Cvl5p/62PlNbntFJxkWVhnlUX4sfYEOt CgNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkhtA7LVo0j840h8BFbi7nNNdjHSwQj5Furu2s2pWS+U9faPrp5SlfZFKknAzBO9IylGaht
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.74.69 with SMTP id t5mr24460852vcj.18.1385662253979; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:10:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.198.199 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:10:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
In-Reply-To: <52978257.1090103@gmail.com>
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com> <529719D7.9020109@cisco.com> <CAKHUCzxjwMXzy6=9WdRPRRCunKsLm9JFuo6JavMtEC7Tbov8TQ@mail.gmail.com> <DDE4643D-62CD-4B12-B1BF-176A5AA4CED9@standardstrack.com> <52978257.1090103@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:10:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6ivvMkQy-CNYcCaUwY211ANta8Sou+Gte3KkseRpyvRZJA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b624cbe6da06204ec40a20a"
Cc: IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:10:59 -0000

It seems to me that if there are sane strongly-held objections to both of
the alternatives on the table, then neither alternative is suitable for a
standards-track RFC.


On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 11/28/13 2:29 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
> > More to the point, if the WG cannot come to IETF consensus, that
> > itself is sufficient to let the IESG know the WG (a bunch of close
> > experts) is not *READY* to select a single codec. If the WG is not
> > *READY* to pick a single codec, neither is the IETF.
>
> This strikes me as precisely the issue.  If there's no
> consensus there's no consensus.
>
> Melinda
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email