RE: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 4D7461AD93D; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:39:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 t34kEP0xp41F; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:39:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s7.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s7.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782D91ADF76; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:39:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W117 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s7.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:39:49 -0800
X-TMN: [EYXemPDCGUI6iZmav9gk6jFDCOA5EPEX]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W1176AB7AECF0757C380A70E93EE0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_84423b41-b90c-4658-b731-012e92c49847_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:39:49 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <D4D5920A-E041-42E8-BB1C-1CB24FBEE3F4@nominum.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Nov 2013 22:39:49.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF338630:01CEEC8A]
Cc: "rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
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 22:39:52 -0000

> On Nov 28, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> That tells me that the participants are not willing to live with losing and
> move on, and so no voting process will work either.

[BA] The participants aren't willing to live with losing for business or legal reasons that aren't within the jurisdiction of an IETF WG.  As an example,  would an open source product that requires source code to be provided without a license fee put that aside because IETF RTCWEB has agreed upon H.264 as MTI?  Similarly, would a vendor who is concerned about potential liability from incorporating VP8 put that concern aside because the IETF RTCWEB WG has decided to make VP8 MTI?  


Given that "alternative decision processes" are quite unlikely to influence participant behavior,  it is appropriate to question why such a voting process is being used, without at least a determination of consensus to do so.