Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Thu, 21 November 2013 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A811AE26C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:21:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_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 6pz_j0q93fmr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:21:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877751AE263 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:21:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc-vpn3-1087.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 762F222E1F3; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:21:05 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <528E57EC.6020000@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:21:40 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A3CFC6C8-C986-4FAB-B411-D90F70CBB4FE@iii.ca>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <528E57EC.6020000@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:21:21 -0000

The intention was to discus this for a week update it as needed,  then make the formal consensus call to use the proposed process process. So I agree we need a very clear consensus call on it. 

On Nov 21, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:

> On 11/21/13 08:51, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> We (WG chairs) are proposing that the working group consent to a method
>> that will establish an MTI, even if the MTI chosen does not have rough
>> consensus.
> 
> Although this is phrased very carefully, I think this email inadvertently glosses over the fact that this is a formal call for consensus around the proposed approach. I also think you need to be crystal clear -- and I'm going to borrow RFC 3929's language here -- "that the working group's consensus to use [this specific] method stands in for the working group's consensus on the technical issue."
> 
> I wanted to point this out because it would be very easy to accidentally read the email as an announcement for the way the codec will be selected, rather than a call for consensus around a proposed approach.
> 
> /a
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb