Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Harald, WG,

We apologize for the failure to inform and keep the WG aware of the
discussion and TSV ADs request to move draft-ietf-rtcweb-qos with it's
then content to TSVWG. A request chairs and authors accepted in the end
more than a year ago. This is clearly a failure by us chairs to ensure
sufficient transparency and a venue to timely protest that decision.

After reviewing this with TSVWG chairs, the non-recused RTCWEB chairs
(Magnus and Ted) do believe that the DSCP aspects require TSVWG action,
and that draft-dhesikan belongs there as a result. If there are aspects
of the QoS approach that are outside draft-dsheikan's current remit,
those might still belong in RTCWEB. We might also be able to pull some
pieces out of draft-dhesikan for local progress, but we can't take the
full document as it stands. Thus nothing prevents the WG from creating a
new QoS related WG document assuming a different scope than the previous
document. If any WG participants see a need for such a document they are
welcome to submit an individual document as a proposal for such a WG
document.

We note you protesting the lack of progress of draft-dhesikan in TSVWG,
and state that as one reason why this document should be in RTCWEB WG.
After reviewing mailing list discussion, meeting minutes and talking to
the TSVWG chairs, it appears that the main reason it hasn't been making
more progress have been the lack of an draft update to resolve the issue
raised in the Berlin TSVWG meeting. We have good hopes that the document
can make fair progress in TSVWG assuming author and RTCWEB participants
make timely contributions to the document.

Harald, does this provide a clear enough way forward or, do you wish to
continue your appeal?

Best Regards

Magnus Westerlund
Ted Hardie





On 2013-11-13 21:21, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> This mail concerns both administrative and technical issues, which is
> why it is explicitly copied to the ADs of RAI and TSV. I hope I have
> managed to keep them separate in the message.
> 
> Magnus said in an email yesterday, concerning draft-ietf-rtcweb-qos:
> 
>> Okay, we might not have been public enough on this. It was requested by
>> the Transport ADs quite some time ago that doing the QoS document in our
>> WG was not appropriate and requested us to direct the document to TSVWG.
>> Which was done, and where it hasn't made progress.
>>
>> You might have noted that James Polk did comment in the milestone part
>> in the monday session of IETF88 about our QoS milestone should be killed.
> I want to protest this - both practically and formally.
> 
> To get the formal stuff out of the way first:
> 
> Changing the deliverables of the working group *without telling the
> working group* is totally inappropriate in an open, consensus-driven
> process.
> Changing the deliverables of the working group *without telling the
> working group why* and *without allowing those reasons to be debated* is
> totally inappropriate in an open, consensus-driven process.
> 
> I protest against this action.
> 
> ACTION REQUEST 1: I request that this decision be declared null and
> void, and that the relevant ADs send out a message to RTCWEB (and TSVWG
> if appropriate) *PROPOSING* such an action, and giving a reasonable
> timeline for when they will make a decision based on mailing list feedback.
> 
> In practice:
> 
> The draft as it existed before its untimely demise consisted of two things:
> 
> - A description of how QoS mechanisms could be useful in the RTCWEB use case
> - A description of existing mechanisms that could be appropriate for the
> RTCWEB use case
> 
> The first one is clearly something that needs RTCWEB consensus. It seems
> to have no need for, nor likelyhood of gathering interest enough for, a
> TSVWG consensus.
> 
> There could be some argument that the second part needs TSVWG consensus,
> especially if it was redefining any mechanisms, or it was making choices
> between mechanisms where TSVWG had strong opinions about which
> mechanisms should be chosen, but had not chosen to document that in any
> document on which IETF consensus had been declared (that is to say,
> existing RFCs).
> 
> My archive shows 36 messages where the title refers to this draft. It
> shows no messages declaring that feedback has been incorporated and
> calling for new review - something that is usually necessary to get a WG
> consensus on any document. The debate hasn't been conclusive, but then,
> it hasn't been pushed hard either.
> 
> The people who know how RTCWEB works are in this working group. Some of
> them may be in TSV, but I think the locus of knowledge for saying what
> QoS mechanisms are appropriate for RTCWEB are here, not in TSV.
> 
> This results in my second request.
> 
> ACTION REQUEST 2: I request that the chairs declare that based on the
> debate about the QoS functionality so far, the document should be
> resurrected, and will continue to be  worked on in the RTCWEB working
> group, bringing in advice from TSVWG as required to make sure the
> descriptions of underlying mechanisms, and the choice of such
> mechanisms, is correct and appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------