Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 878951A1AF2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 uYsO8OWcjQsr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E63601A1B06 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id em10so12752930wid.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=f0MzB3gv4I7G10JcHfBhIX/sywkSkWN36CDp20k+G44=; b=cMeGuffRTeqBksEZwvrgC/SxXNIvQMh+b0uFdO/xsLO6VZ7BIFJN8wWKSk8u4nJj48 qDPP8HU+wMXKgQqNAQsFj5E2q+mcbCbdlhFF7U5p/4XfHnPqJ5LCjsN3x2jWWobVWe/Q MPs0q4tkE4epG8Fkrk2IiVb9fQ22UAUjFlDiKjLDgnVQAW7ovaX1611qwMwqkgUSRVvL uZ/jaqA/F7FwwdtjPJsllr9J7yMM1cEF8ZiNcFcsNKGPsnxVhFS2PwmVud0OjD9E+VSc Ly14Y+9mFYwtAqWcoj2yrRCqxLR6PMmiUyAHYm8WyDV7aJDp6m6FAQX1ny9HWQSc/dWN 7geA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnmsskNjrYqrTEdiutLhvn3LGwOct9OUD/MW/uj4ZUL1l9/tZsOl4IdWFMAO/nVolZjfFWt
X-Received: by 10.180.84.98 with SMTP id x2mr5561210wiy.14.1418742521070; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.130.34 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi>
References: <B52D8E91-5D96-4960-8DDE-DD970014DE5D@ieca.com> <CALiegfnRvgDK4EnDBSn76YKktWLMjShsQRP6byCRqZC07WaVqw@mail.gmail.com> <548F0E28.8040503@andyet.net> <20141215192409.GN47023@verdi> <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net> <CA+9kkMDNhRdbzCs9vrqDeD4CoWWK1xS5o0z3jL0DvNpDuLfCPw@mail.gmail.com> <548F5E22.2040605@andyet.net> <548F5F0E.4050100@nostrum.com> <548F5FB8.9010300@andyet.net> <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOAfuscG28PMAu8JJ4yAAt1-ohnuqCaeoa+jkpDkJhhpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044401b2ff17ff050a56bb27
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/2LMEY_ciI0MVcPC9wIC4csXOvQQ
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
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: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:08:45 -0000

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:03 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:
>
> Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> > On 12/15/14 16:24, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> >> On 12/15/14, 3:22 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I agree 100%, but I don't think we need to get consensus on what this
> >>> effort might look like 10 years in the future. Let's leave tomorrow's
> >>> battles for tomorrow, or we'll never make progress.
> >>
> >> Yes, that's why I'm now saying to leave out all future-oriented text.
> >
> > I take the point, but there is one key future-looking component of the
> > current accord. Leaving it undocumented basically violates the agreement
> > that many people have signed up for...
>
>    This bothers me enough, even after sleeping on it, to comment:
>
>    We are watching a model of "back room deals" such as the US Congress
> uses. I strongly believe we should reject this model.
>
>    (That doesn't mean we need to reject the consensus called by a WGC.)
>
>    The US Congress typically includes the text of every "important"
> lobbyist in the final bill; and expects the congress-critters to vote
> for it pretty much sight-unseen. The "leadership" tells the individual
> members what to vote for.
>
>    Here, not only do we have Adam Roach defending the back-room deal, we
> have the WGCs failing to post an "official" version of the text we are
> consenting to.
>
>    I cry "TILT"! Let's have the WGC calling consensus publish the
> text we're being asked to consent to.
>

Huh? The relevant text is here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03#section-5

-Ekr