IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mon, 02 December 2013 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 C7E5F1AD8D5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:31:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 dbV-8QEA1sMp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:31:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACCB1AD845 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:31:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1B82CCE4; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 22:31:05 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5qgjnd0ClM_R; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 22:31:04 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D992CC48; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 22:31:04 +0200 (EET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <529CECD4.8040608@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:31:04 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A2AFEA14-A049-481B-B7FB-AF83EE2FF2A6@piuha.net>
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com> <tsl4n6wk09e.fsf@mit.edu> <48016D6E-6B76-4DC9-A6AD-6F9FCE8BAF0E@sobco.com> <529C03FA.1070100@joelhalpern.com> <8DFFD576-3C3C-4150-A041-82FF020ABEB4@piuha.net> <529CECD4.8040608@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@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 20:31:09 -0000

> In this case, the waters are much murkier (there's nothing that specifically says we can't vote), so I think it's reasonable to let the community take a stab at how it wants proceed. If the WG can come up with a process that involves sticking hands up in the air or paper ballots or whatever that still protects (to quote a certain document) "the rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process", then we're doing "the right thing". But they do have to come up with that fair and open process. I for one am willing to wait and see if the WG and the larger IETF community can come to consensus on how to do that.

Yes - agreed.

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email