[RAI] Fwd: [rtcweb] Fwd: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb)

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rai@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rai@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4AB81AE39E for <rai@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:13:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WVUFHWWO6-3H for <rai@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:13:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92181ADFDA for <rai@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:13:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id q58so701283wes.30 for <rai@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 06:13:04 -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 :content-type; bh=PRl/rLOJCq3x5ZE8TVmlEZA3wE+aj2YmiJqIwcGcS0I=; b=nPBV/ssYrBLuYSr087UBa3OehwsSlWYQcAVuvHoGfx61/hQcZoPjCBnVpYkubc6iJo S36WTwl9Z6p262O73KZ+KT/tedT0irJBJ07CoHUejEiuIVGikkSH8Tzk3ib68Yz68Vsg geRSRBM5M3jpF43UdbOC1hFH1UnO9DlLrk+aLymg2aGavJag1NK8PWmHDCAp4N14UzZT oylTQ7uW+SbVIQpdkXDae5tClC82Sk+m3KykOMkVG+EVMnfm1CXqiJuenTlrLOl9rMzz MhXxXKN7l9qB7PIsZiicDSok+iIBcv3WwEy0gocDYe6bjDuHVW+B3YJMXdmfSwREN2U0 5v5A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id j4mr3319707wjs.34.1386339184479; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 06:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:13:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52A1ADC4.90404@ericsson.com>
References: <52A1AD87.1000706@ericsson.com> <52A1ADC4.90404@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 08:13:04 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN75oRB=bscaGJmcWrbag_8NQdkqJ76metK-kzfa=5v8yQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: "rai@ietf.org" <rai@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba97f3aa112a804ecde3e26
Subject: [RAI] Fwd: [rtcweb] Fwd: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb)
X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" <rai.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rai>, <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai/>
List-Post: <mailto:rai@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai>, <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:13:12 -0000

I think this also hits on general process concerns for other RAI WGs.  And,
there may well be folks on this RAI list that have the sense/sanity to not
be subscribed to the RTCWEB WG or the main IETF list.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:58 AM
Subject: [rtcweb] Fwd: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative
decision process in RTCWeb)
To: rtcweb@ietf.org



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative decision
process in RTCWeb)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:57:11 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
CC: <rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org>


I want to thank everybody for all the input on this issue. Let me
address a few of the points that have been brought up during the

People seem to have different views on which processes MUST be used at
the IETF when developing documents, which ones MAY be used, and which
ones MUST NOT be used.

Given the strong disagreements we have seen, it may be useful to agree
on a set of guidelines and document them at some point. In the mean
time, let me clarify how the RTCWeb WG (or at least some people in that
community) interpret the IETF process.

The view a part of the RTCWeb community shares is the following:

Documents MUST go through both a WGLC and an IETF LC where the community
needs to reach rough consensus on them. That is, per standard IETF
processes, documents that reach rough consensus at those stages are
progressed while documents that don't reach rough consensus are *not*

In summary: proposals are evaluated first by the WG and then by the IETF
community as a whole using a consensus mechanism.

Where people seem to disagree, often strongly, is on how proposals that
will be put forward for such evaluation by the WG and the IETF community
can be generated.

Some people think that processes that are somewhat related to voting
MUST NOT be used within a WG at all. Other people think that using
processes such as straw polls or some types of voting can help the WG
understand better the situation at hand and help build consensus, which
will be *ultimately* evaluated in the WGLC and IETF LCs on the document.

In short, some people think that the important fact is that documents
need to reach consensus at the WGLC and IETF LC stages. Before that, one
could use different processes if they are likely to help building that
consensus. Other people disagree.

My personal opinion is that both interpretations above have some merit
and should be discussed within the IETF community, which will sure face
difficult situations like this one in the future again. Future WG chairs
will benefit from more clarity on these issues.

On a related note, there have been some comments about the RTCWeb chairs
effectively attacking the IETF principles. I think those comments are
unfair. We are talking about three former ADs in different areas all of
whom have made significant contributions to the IETF community along
many years. They understand the situation at hand and are trying to
actively propose alternatives to resolve a difficult and important
issue. Let's discuss which interpretation of the IETF process the
community agrees more with (per the points above) instead of judging
people for interpreting the rules differently in an area that is,
arguably, not completely clear.

With respect to the decision about the MTI video codec at the RTCWeb WG,
the chairs will be proposing a way forward (taking into account all the
input received) shortly.



On 28/11/2013 11:17 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Folks,
> as you may know, the RTCWeb WG is trying to select a
> mandatory-to-implement video codec. So far, the WG has been unable to
> reach consensus using traditional consensus calls. Now, the WG is
> considering alternative options to make that decision.
> If you are interested in following that discussion on the RTCWeb list,
> this would be a good place to start:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html
> Cheers,
> Gonzalo

rtcweb mailing list