Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Fri, 17 August 2012 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A2721F845B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tloUxTMn+B2f for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (zimbra.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925D621F8452 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.47.160.214] (unknown [212.183.132.59]) by zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id D632637A905; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:43:41 +0100 (BST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <50228C5F.8010403@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:22:42 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5561F28B-9BE5-424B-8898-1144BACF51F8@phonefromhere.com>
References: <pm9g3f539oh0iyg0y0j4elbn.1344273079260@email.android.com> <81579634-CC55-46FF-8C3B-94EB5019786A@phonefromhere.com> <50228C5F.8010403@alvestrand.no>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>, "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:34:50 -0000

Harald, I see from reviewing the archives that my reply to this didn't go in for some reason,
so I just want to put on the record that you are (of course) right. There was no specific proposal to
action, so there was nothing for the chairs to ignore.

The point I failed to make politely was that many of us knew informally that Skype/MS were not 
happy with the situation, so a document like this should not have been unexpected.

My apologies for my rudeness.

Tim.

On 8 Aug 2012, at 16:57, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> On 08/07/2012 11:57 AM, Tim Panton wrote:
>> Ok, the timing is unfortunate, but can you honestly say that we didn't know that this was skype/microsofts opinion? We just chose to ignore it because it was inconvenient.
>> 
>> Now that it is out there, are we seriously going to ignore a document with _those_ authors from a major browser maker and a team with extensive experience in the field jus because it is late!?!?
> Speaking with WG chair hat on:
> 
> At the time of previous "what is the appropriate level" discussion, the WG chairs concluded that there was a rough WG consensus to stay with a higher-level API rather than trying to move the level of the API downwards towards a "low level API".
> 
> Since that time and until this week, there has been no specific proposal to be evaluated, and the main proponents of such an  API have been silent. Normal behaviour is to assume that a previous consensus declaration stands until there is new technical evidence to be evaluated, and proceed with further work on that basis.
> 
> So I can't agree that "because it was inconvenient" is an appropriate characterization.
> 
>              Harald
> 
>