Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 0CA791ACC87; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:52:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no
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 4SqprCCNwrZG; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A061A1F19; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:52:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2758; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385646769; x=1386856369; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=of9Cwtn0+lzovpWosdPwYeOBUoJOdyRQmS6/RNEsyco=; b=KQkkMp1zDRt3gSixsIr44B4/QQZNEu+JZv+E/AALtVzlqEmUcT5mnL7i oHgu/LgAYxwlHGX54wqWsJzQNml4Spq3XfXjf4gzZDJML04Yc5cAANG+W S713Hh3qDxBqkHgz1h9GiZSaX1/fymUjAAwYSV6IXIV49/Q6D2ZyXGTtc 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAIhJl1KQ/khN/2dsb2JhbAA/GoMHOINNtH9OgR0WdIIlAQEBBB0GDwE5AggCARALGAICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEMAQcBAQWHeA02rxKRCYEpjQ4BAU8HgmuBSAOYFIEwkGODKjuBNQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,791,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="771642"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2013 13:52:48 +0000
Received: from dhcp-wlsn01-vlan250-10-147-28-63.cisco.com (dhcp-wlsn01-vlan250-10-147-28-63.cisco.com [10.147.28.63]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rASDqfke026951 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:52:43 GMT
Message-ID: <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:52:40 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?SGVydsOp?= <h_o_w_@hotmail.com>, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:02:48 -0800
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
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, 28 Nov 2013 13:52:52 -0000

While I appreciate the difficult position the chairs are in, I don't
agree with the approach and I believe it is inappropriate for the
working group to make such a decision.  Working groups don't vote.  Want
to change that process?  Better gain IETF consensus first.  And I will
argue against any such attempt.  There are plenty of other standards
bodies that do vote.  Go to one of them if that's what you want.

Eliot

On 11/28/13 2:35 PM, Hervé wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>
>> 2) If the Working Group does want to mandate a single codec, is there
> consensus for one of the alternate decision-making processes described
> in RFC 3929? This is our best guess at what to do here; despite it being
>  a (presumably expired) Experimental track RFC.
>
>
> RFC 3929 has been mentioned on the rtcweb mailinglist and during the last meeting.
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/maillist.html
> http://ietf88.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#RTCWEB_II
>
>
>> If nobody else appeals the decision, then I will - assuming I'm allowed to - if it gets this far.
>> it's not clear to me that there is a consensus surrounding the voting
> rules - they've certainly yet to be summarised in one place based on the
>  discussion that has occurred so far.
>
> No decision yet. Per
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html today
> is the last planned day for comment/discussion on the _proposal_ to vote,
> before the proposal gets updated. A further call for consensus to use
> the proposal would follow after updating.
> Perhaps you'd like to get involved now rather than later.
>
>
> Here's what I sent to someone else regarding the proposed schedule:
> Nov 28          last day of comment/discussion period on proposed _voting process_ http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html
>  
> after Nov 28    WG chairs will update, if necessary, the process proposal
> after update    normal IETF process to reach consensus about adopting the (updated) process proposal
>  
> +2 weeks        last day of the consensus call about adopting the voting process
>  
>  
> IF consensus was reached to use the voting process in those 2 weeks after the update for that process, ONLY THEN would the (2 week) voting period start (if that wasn't changed in the update/concensus call).
>  
> So the voting process can theoretically _start_ Dec 13 at the earliest, if accepted. Probably later (if ever), given that updating the proposal is unlikely to be instantaneous.
>  
>  
> I hope that made it clearer. The source for this is the bottom section of http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html
>  
>  
> - Hervé 		 	   		  
>