Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture

Hi all,

IIRC, SDES related presentation was supposed to be discussed during IETF-84
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda/rtcweb/) as per the plan.
AFAIK, those presentation are not delivered so far. 

In case I missed the presentation, Please send the minutes of the meeting.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:29 PM
> To: Magnus Westerlund
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
> 
> 
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Magnus Westerlund
> <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> > However, this time we have proposed a time and requested people to
> > submit agenda items to that meeting. Don't hold us WG chairs
> responsible
> > because you in the WG aren't providing input into what should be
> discussed.
> 
> You can't be serious.
> There was exactly ONE email asking for agenda items, here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07668.html
> It was sent on May 30th.  It gave a generous 6 days to respond.
> Luckily no one ever goes on vacation for longer than 5 days.
> Instead, two people sent a response on June 10th, a tremendous 11 days
> after the request.  Outrageous!  That's a almost twice as long as they
> were given!
> 
> Thank goodness the chairs detected this monstrous breach of procedure,
> and thwarted the attempts of anarchy!  I mean if people are allowed to
> respond to emails so tardily, how can we be expected to get things
> accomplished as quickly as they've so far been in this WG?!?
> 
> Sure, an interim for this topic has been waiting for many months if not
> a whole year, and now that people didn't respond in 6 days but took
> instead 11 days the topic will be delayed indefinitely yet again... but
> that's no excuse for blatantly flaunting the rules!
> 
> Personally I saw the email on May 30th, and assumed Oscar and Dan would
> respond to you for agenda time.  I assumed that if no one had submitted
> agenda items to you, that the WG Chairs would send out an email warning
> about that, or perhaps even directly email the people who they expected
> to submit agenda items.
> 
> 
> > If you want to discuss this, write a draft describing how how your
> > additional keying is to be integrated, what the pro and cons of it.
> That
> > will enable direct discussion of a proposal. The WG clearly are
> > opinionated on this matter, but apparently don't have energy to
> produce
> > proposals.
> 
> There *are* drafts.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-rtcweb-sdes-problems-00
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohlsson-rtcweb-sdes-support-01
> There are even powerpoint slides, sent to the chairs the last time this
> meeting almost happened but didn't.
> 
> I think the problem must be that those things weren't signed in
> triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to
> public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three
> months and recycled as firelighters.
> 
> -hadriel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb