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>
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
Precedence: list

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=20
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.
>>=20
>> 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:
>=20
> 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".
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> So I can't agree that "because it was inconvenient" is an appropriate =
characterization.
>=20
>              Harald
>=20
>=20