IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <synp71@live.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 1FF311ADF65 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:24:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 h46rn7LvZsdC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s20.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s20.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED2C1ACCE4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP252 ([65.55.111.72]) by blu0-omc2-s20.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:24:47 -0800
X-TMN: [0+VIXaxXg9DBWHJ2jvkeg79MrVmZ8VLb]
X-Originating-Email: [synp71@live.com]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP2528701C9F2545FCE220744B1EE0@phx.gbl>
Received: from ynir-MBA.local ([84.109.50.18]) by BLU0-SMTP252.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:24:46 -0800
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:24:43 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
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> <CAHBU6ivvMkQy-CNYcCaUwY211ANta8Sou+Gte3KkseRpyvRZJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6ivvMkQy-CNYcCaUwY211ANta8Sou+Gte3KkseRpyvRZJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms030807010505000008050205"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Nov 2013 19:24:46.0471 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F7C7170:01CEEC6F]
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 19:24:50 -0000

On 28/11/13 8:10 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> 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.
So, does that mean that there should not be a standardized codec for 
WebRTC, or that we should come up with with a new alternative that 
nobody wants?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email