IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 02 December 2013 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 0D57F1AE483 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:40:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] 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 n3Db2TXs1qWN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:40:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99E41AE476 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rB2Ee6xN053057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:40:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <8DFFD576-3C3C-4150-A041-82FF020ABEB4@piuha.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 06:40:06 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9E70DD0E-72D3-4004-BBAA-C913D99904E3@vpnc.org>
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>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
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: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:40:12 -0000

I am not active in RTCWeb, but I have been discussing the deadlock on a mandatory-to-implement video codec with a few people.

On Dec 2, 2013, at 4:28 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

> However, the WG process is allowed to "fail" (if you can call it that) and not standardise something that we do not find consensus on. We've been through this many times in the past, and took various actions. Sometime it did lead to considerable market split and lack of interoperability, sometimes a practical unified reality emerged from what the vendors did, sometimes we learned to live with multiple choices, sometimes we returned to the question sometime later and found a standard. It has usually not been the end of the world. 

A big +1 to this part of Jari's message. The IETF has seen more situations like this than we have seen "we'll vote, but just this once".

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email