Re: [MMUSIC] Moving Forward on 4572-update (was Re: Rough concensus: Re: 4572-update: Consensus call on how to move forward)

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Tue, 25 October 2016 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5433112940E; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 JMSxYUEwMK17; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD503127735; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-5405a9800000793b-d2-580ee0838b6f
Received: from ESESSHC018.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.72]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E5.35.31035.380EE085; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 06:33:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.90]) by ESESSHC018.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 06:33:04 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Moving Forward on 4572-update (was Re: [MMUSIC] Rough concensus: Re: 4572-update: Consensus call on how to move forward)
Thread-Index: AQHSLnR1sB2Eo9RdiEK53xAcLSP2VaC4lNg5
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 04:33:04 +0000
Message-ID: <32BBB414-85BA-484C-954D-EDC8620F26DF@ericsson.com>
References: <729820D1-4135-4B75-AC85-379A5314CEC7@nostrum.com>, <e13f65d8-51cb-e7d4-3c35-a07950daf158@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <e13f65d8-51cb-e7d4-3c35-a07950daf158@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupkkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbHdQ7f5AV+EwbQHJhYbn05msZjfeZrd 4v0FXYsP638wWkxd/pjFgdVjyu+NrB5Llvxk8rh8/iOjx6ydT1gCWKK4bFJSczLLUov07RK4 MvbfnstU0GVW0TC5gbWB8ZF2FyMnh4SAicTWR3fZuhi5OIQE1jNK/G2exQLhLGaU2PG+ibGL kYODTcBCovufNogpIqAtMXWBBUgJM0jJvc2XwJqFBdoZJdqfzwBzRAQ6GCUurfjKBrJCRMBI 4uKlSywg3SwCqhK3VlmDhHkF7CW6tl1jBbGFBPIlLnbdYQSxOQVsJeY8ewoWZxQQk/h+ag0T iM0sIC5x68l8JoirBSSW7DnPDGGLSrx8/I8VosZA4v25+cwQtrbEsoWvmSF2CUqcnPmEZQKj yCwko2YhaZmFpGUWkpYFjCyrGEWLU4uTctONjPVSizKTi4vz8/TyUks2MQIj6OCW36o7GC+/ cTzEKMDBqMTDq+DDFyHEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhHfubaAQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkOFiVx XrOV98OFBNITS1KzU1MLUotgskwcnFINjDGvP0c3/FBOWzL10JUXqTVlB/53tfbvyNtxSXFt 3YoL850n8t/8cZP/7Q1RvdX+MrVTlZhlIrgzWCa9Xnsg+E/zXf4/dbffi6u/yv/YEabSn+/X t61adkbhDI0D10ruvte3rO4+p2Ucd2z2s6WxU6R9f02t5eNUzzb+Pce30ufm/pzJVroSAUos xRmJhlrMRcWJALNSAaucAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/CrkfuZJ64ndIAGBZw9bnvtJMQ-Y>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, ART ADs <art-ads@ietf.org>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Moving Forward on 4572-update (was Re: Rough concensus: Re: 4572-update: Consensus call on how to move forward)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 04:33:12 -0000

Hi Flemming,

Any day but Monday works for me.

Regards,

Christer 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 25 Oct 2016, at 7.01, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben
> 
> We will get a poll setup as soon as we understand any major constraints from the key participants.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -- Flemming
> 
> 
>> On 10/21/16 4:49 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Hi Everyone, please accept my apologies for waiting this long to weigh in.
>> 
>> I think it's clear that multiple people are not happy with how we got to this point. But assigning blame doesn't help us make progress on the draft. I propose that we get over that, and instead focus instead on how to move forward. Email discussion doesn't seem to be helping. Maybe a call will.
>> 
>> Flemming and/or Bo: Can you set up a Doodle poll to get Christer, Cullen, and other demonstratively  interested parties on a conference call? I will join if at all possible, but don't let scheduling around me stop a call from happening.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Ben.
>> 
>>> On 21 Oct 2016, at 11:05, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>>> 
>>> [fixing cc-list]
>>> 
>>>> On 10/21/16 11:59 AM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/21/16 11:21 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>>>> I think that is a bad way to run a WG. All I asked for was a phone call to discuss this so we could get the issues on the table and discuss what is best. The chairs never even replied to my request for a WG call to discuss this.
>>>> That is simply not true. You (and Christer) were explicitly asked to setup a phone call on 10/6/16 to discuss this issue; a request that (like many other others) went unanswered or required extensive prodding to get any attention.
>>>> 
>>>>> The list discussions that ensued from this resulted in people other than me sugesting possibilities that were much better than any of the three below -  none of which were considered in your consensus call.
>>>> I'm not sure what those proposals are, nor were they brought up in response to the consensus call.
>>>> 
>>>>> I don’t plan to appeal this but I am considering if it’s worth my time to participate in this WG if we are not going to be willing to actually spend a short time to discuss possible solutions before taking a consensus call.  As input to that decisions, it would be really useful to know why you refused to have a phone call on this topic and what your policy in general is going to be toward discussions of proposed solutions to problems in the future.
>>>> My position is that we will try our very best to get to not only consensus but to satisfy as many concerns as we possibly can. It does however require people to engage in a timely manner, and even when they don't, we still do what we can, but at some point we need to move forward. As for the issue at hand, it has been discussed extensively, and several changes were made to the draft to try and accommodate your requests.
>>>> 
>>>> The one major remaining issue I believe you have is around whether this document updates RFC 4572. This has been discussed extensively on the wgchairs list; a discussion I initiated to try and help address your concern. You may disagree with how that discussion concluded, but again, to try and alleviate your concerns, a note was added to 4572-update to make it clear that the document does not make existing 4572 implementations non-compliant with RFC 4572.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe the chairs, authors, and the WG at large has done everything that can reasonably be done to try and address your concerns, and at this point we need to move forward.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> -- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 6:43 AM, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Following up on the consensus call, we have received 5 responses in favor of option a) below, one neutral, and one objection. Looking at the document we have noted that backwards compatibility is handled by the current text in the document and it also clearly states that it does not make current RFC 4572 implementation non-compliant with RFC 4572. Since we have not heard of any technical problems with proposal a), nor seen any tangible progress on how to address the objection, we are hereby declaring rough consensus on option a). We will proceed with the publication request for the current draft while duly noting the "roughness" of the consensus based on the pending objection as part of this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Flemming & Bo (MMUSIC chairs)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10/12/16 6:23 PM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>>>>>>> Greetings
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There has been quite a bit of discussion on draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update (currently -07), which had previously completed WGLC when a few concerns were raised. The document currently:
>>>>>>> 1. Clarifies the usage of multiple SDP 'fingerprint' attributes
>>>>>>> 2. Updates the preferred cipher-suite with a stronger cipher suite
>>>>>>> 3. Updates RFC 4572.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Item 1 seems to be generally agreeable, whereas items 2 and 3 are not. The chairs are hereby soliciting WG feedback on how to proceed based on the following choices:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> a) Proceed with publication of 4572-update-07 in its current form (i.e. covering all 3 items above)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> b) Remove item 2 from 4572-update, i.e. do not update the preferred cipher-suite
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> c) Remove item 3 from 4572-update, i.e. do not indicate that this document constitutes an update to RFC 4572.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Note that choice a) is mutually exclusive with b) and c), but b) and c) are not mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please let us know your preference wrt to the above no later than Friday October 14th.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>       Flemming & Bo (MMUSIC chairs)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>>>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>> .
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>> 
>> .
>> 
>