IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 16 December 2014 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 8EE151A1BB1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:35:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 PhugBzk0Rayi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:35:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAE831A1BAA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2658C7C372D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:35:17 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2TTFphhgnAw1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:35:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hta-hippo.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:a83c:7992:ce6b:24b3]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 09AEF7C3711 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:35:15 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54905132.40105@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:35:14 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <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> <CABcZeBOAfuscG28PMAu8JJ4yAAt1-ohnuqCaeoa+jkpDkJhhpw@mail.gmail.com> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi>
In-Reply-To: <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/I3WwceL9qDdxavMiWDFy9v_0MjI
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 15:35:20 -0000

On 12/16/2014 04:21 PM, John Leslie wrote:
> Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:03 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>     Perhaps it is; perhaps not: we'd have to listen to the audio to be
> sure. Even after hearing the audio once, I'm not quite sure...

If the chairs say that the text in video-03 section 5 is the text they 
think they're calling consensus on, I'm happy to have consensus called 
on that.

It's close enough to what I believe we agreed on in Honolulu that I'm 
willing to consider the changes from what I remember editorial (the 
biggest difference I see offhand is the indentation of the 
future-pointing section, but there might have been grammar changes too.)

I agree that having the consensus-calling chair state that this text is 
what he's calling consensus on would be beneficial.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email