IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 7FCFD1AE0D2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 04:46:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 acdVDXZrCWYl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 04:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C561ADEA6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 04:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b13so10364163wgh.18 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 04:46:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=qrH78beNC+BDrKSDzY8Zs/td6YAOtuhZcjlpl0yVAjQ=; b=Dbr41id1Xe/tIhAmRL1qxkk3d5HfA09WffjP3ErPQp7o6sEYyH5r2wqhBEeb6CTp5K B79un3bkPzYFYA6EiHijRdvlbiq8uGljpB4TUkGwAICuF0nqbL0e+A8NJFYSofXtKx41 c8llMPyd6+aY/ocdidWSfeLQw6JLRHanas9Xgb99Vu7VEV4VMrE8Xisx1Dh27PAYJpyC V1coiEUNzIo6qZ7jtGFeFLC1xkhozdLYWCrwVV8AQGwKTeAj7/938UpuIUGmcvl9c6kQ JKcJfU60LjvJzcROYKw36EYZZbaksfyXRIWuYT7Vj8Pldd1H/Y2h9j4vWGJ+dc/38HpJ a98A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.108.97 with SMTP id hj1mr2213440wib.59.1386074775419; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 04:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.243.136 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 04:46:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <529CF5F1.9000106@dcrocker.net>
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> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0EF1B8@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <D45703FF-109A-4FFF-92E9-1CC7767C52F7@nominum.com> <CAP+FsNc=cGhOJNTwXY1z-5ZjisOOvX=EOYEf3htGXGcWRKBf6g@mail.gmail.com> <529CF5F1.9000106@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:46:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjCvzDgWTi9mqgvWCoCyRhB+4c8QoaaPQtk=xkBcXMtZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3bafef9f02e804eca0ae9e"
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:46:20 -0000

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 11/29/2013 12:22 AM, Roberto Peon wrote:
>
>> The only reason to specify a must-implement is to increase interop; if
>> mandating a codec does not increase the amount of interop, why do it?
>>
>
>
> If the base specification does not provide enough information for basic
> interoperability, what is the benefit in standardizing it?
>
> An alternative that I believe has already been mentioned is to standardize
> /both/, but separately.
>
> Under two different names, which then lets the market decide on whether
> either will succeed.
>
> Letting the market decide amongst competing choices used to be something
> the IETF did more commonly.  One of the more colorful examples was SNMP vs.
> CMOT.


And twenty years later the market still hasn't decided between S/MIME and
PGP.

Or maybe it has decided none of the above.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email