Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Fri, 20 December 2013 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.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 7E95E1AE1CE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:04:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 QDDC4v11J6_9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:04:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325311A1F74 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:04:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.203]) by atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBKM3uXp024154 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:03:56 -0500
Received: (qmail 31024 invoked by uid 0); 20 Dec 2013 22:03:56 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 70.9.180.34
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.43.65?) (wes@mti-systems.com@70.9.180.34) by 0 with ESMTPA; 20 Dec 2013 22:03:56 -0000
Message-ID: <52B4BEBD.4060702@mti-systems.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:03:41 -0500
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, rai-ads@tools.ietf.org, tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org
References: <5283DF61.9060807@alvestrand.no> <52B31AF0.60107@ericsson.com> <52B32AE7.1080100@dcrocker.net> <52B40A1E.6030308@ericsson.com> <52B481A9.6010008@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <52B481A9.6010008@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision
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: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 22:04:01 -0000

On 12/20/2013 12:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> Working groups decide on what documents they adopt, within the
> constraints of their charters.  To move a document from one working
> group to another requires agreement of both working groups.  AD's do not
> have final authority on this.
> 


The document is doing things that are in TSVWG's charter and not
in RTCWEB's charter.  It should not have been adopted in RTCWEB
in the first place.  Moving it out corrected that mistake.


-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems