Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Tue, 16 December 2014 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 877041A1B75 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:03:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 E5h7mn4asq4H for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:03:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BD41A1B0C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:03:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id E91D3C94A9; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:03:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:03:03 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/MWStOVic48LPK6JHOC8I1xxL2JY
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 15:03:20 -0000

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.

   And I strongly recommend all of us read Pete Resnick's RFC 7282 "On
Consensus and Humming in the IETF", especally Section 3.

   I have heard a lot of points raised relating to this consensus call.
I have not heard much discussion about how to accomodate those concerns.
Instead we hear "Take it or leave it: this is the only deal which can
get enough votes!"

   Granted, Pete's RFC is strictly Informational: it cannot override
RFC 2418, which says:
]
] Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other
] means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note
] that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus"
] and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if
] rough consensus has been reached.

   Thus this is not a "process appeal" -- the WGCs are entitled to
say "A strong majority agrees with the consensus of the Hawaii session"
and say that is consensus. But I might appeal if they don't tell us what
text we're agreeing to until _after_ declaring consensus.

   And I really do recommend we all try to follow Pete Resnick's advice
on consensus rather than turn this into an exercise in voting. The word
"consensus" _does_ have a meaning quite different from "2/3 vote".

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>