IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Mon, 02 December 2013 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
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 6156E1ADF95; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:11:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 8hMrTdyOnAgQ; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239511ADF10; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46652205C4; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:10:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d8RT4oeHOBDb; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:10:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-50-136-31-107.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [50.136.31.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:10:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 4E34F8375A; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:11:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com> <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net> <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com> <5006.1385666853@sandelman.ca> <D4D5920A-E041-42E8-BB1C-1CB24FBEE3F4@nominum.com> <BLU169-W1176AB7AECF0757C380A70E93EE0@phx.gbl> <20131129060936.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:11:27 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20131129060936.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> (ron@debian.org's message of "Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:39:36 +1030")
Message-ID: <tsly542aoog.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, "rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <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: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:11:35 -0000

>>>>> "Ron" == Ron  <ron@debian.org> writes:

    Ron>  2. Can anybody show a sustainable objection for why we _can't_
    Ron> use H.261.

    Ron>    If they can, we're probably doomed.  If they can't we have
    Ron> an initial choice for MTI.


This is a fine approach, but you also need to get consensus that
least-objectionable-choice is a good decision mechanism.
That doesn't follow directly from we want an MTI codec.

If you think you can get consensus behind the process you propose then
go for it.
However don't skip important steps.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email