Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Tue, 03 December 2013 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
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 C2C6A1AD94A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:52:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 jxK0I3JIk9dR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alt-proxy31.mail.unifiedlayer.com (alt-proxy31.mail.unifiedlayer.com [74.220.221.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A9B171ACCFF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 25808 invoked by uid 0); 3 Dec 2013 20:51:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy13.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2013 20:51:42 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From; bh=DiAhygKELkZA21cEWgQWn8vm1Q11aJKCAJkfvFSJN7s=; b=pR28+oCQqSpOUZzAhXcCIW7hm9gvuawyQEWvyFl0P16MIwos8pwdebpFNiwzQLNdrMFQXyl3QO/dTUEY/wnjIH35CkD8flM4MD9kxGci7W11QG5q1A8NJIPNawiJPjqe;
Received: from [173.79.179.104] (port=57943 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1VnwwX-0000zl-LQ; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:51:41 -0700
From: "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us>
To: "'Sam Hartman'" <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, "'Ron'" <ron@debian.org>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com> <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net> <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com> <5006.1385666853@sandelman.ca> <D4D5920A-E041-42E8-BB1C-1CB24FBEE3F4@nominum.com> <BLU169-W1176AB7AECF0757C380A70E93EE0@phx.gbl> <20131129060936.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <tsly542aoog.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tsly542aoog.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:51:39 -0500
Message-ID: <01bb01cef069$77beac20$673c0460$@shockey.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQHR9JACN53EOm8O1zG5mQ+qAcMVGQGM/Y9HAgo6cagCK0Pd6QJa37IuAkNDumwC+sQILgE3dk9/AlSb7A0Cp2xBWZmgbzqA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 173.79.179.104 authed with richard@shockey.us}
Cc: 'Michael Richardson' <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, rtcweb@ietf.org, 'Dave CROCKER' <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, '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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 20:52:10 -0000

Well I think we need to convene the Supreme Court of Protocol Engineering
Standards ..aka SCOPES.

Use the noncom process to empanel a tribunal of 9 individuals who have never
ever subscribed to a RAI list.  That might be hard..I admit. 

We have the briefs... we just need oral arguments.  London ... black robes.
Or at least black t shirts.

Then an impartial verdict can be rendered and we can get on with the rest of
our lives. 

Of course any resemblance to the Scopes trial in Tennessee would be purely
coincidental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

I want to do the ..

"Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the <fill in the
blank> , of the Supreme Court of Protocol Engineering Standards, are
admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now
sitting.  IPv6 forever..."


-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 5:11 PM
To: Ron
Cc: IETF Discussion; Michael Richardson; rtcweb@ietf.org; Dave CROCKER; Eric
Burger; rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

>>>>> "Ron" == Ron  <ron@debian.org> writes:

    Ron>  2. Can anybody show a sustainable objection for why we _can't_
    Ron> use H.261.

    Ron>    If they can, we're probably doomed.  If they can't we have
    Ron> an initial choice for MTI.


This is a fine approach, but you also need to get consensus that
least-objectionable-choice is a good decision mechanism.
That doesn't follow directly from we want an MTI codec.

If you think you can get consensus behind the process you propose then go
for it.
However don't skip important steps.
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb