Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision
Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 20 December 2013 08:20 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 BDC681AE0D3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:20:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] 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 uj9OX0xpdwVI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:20:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:213:72ff:fe0b:80d8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C301ADFCE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:20:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAF539E467; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:20:44 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5XO+mzR97BCu; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:20:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.17] (unknown [188.113.88.47]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B820E39E16F; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:20:42 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52B3FDE9.1070300@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:20:57 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "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>
In-Reply-To: <52B31AF0.60107@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
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 08:20:47 -0000
Thank you, this resolves my practical issues, and the acknowledgement of the communication & transparency issues seems adequate to help prevent a repeat of this stall. I'll also take this as instructions to the group to replace all references to -rtcweb-qos with referenes to draft-dsheikan (or its successors). On 12/19/2013 05:12 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > Harald, WG, > > We apologize for the failure to inform and keep the WG aware of the > discussion and TSV ADs request to move draft-ietf-rtcweb-qos with it's > then content to TSVWG. A request chairs and authors accepted in the end > more than a year ago. This is clearly a failure by us chairs to ensure > sufficient transparency and a venue to timely protest that decision. > > After reviewing this with TSVWG chairs, the non-recused RTCWEB chairs > (Magnus and Ted) do believe that the DSCP aspects require TSVWG action, > and that draft-dhesikan belongs there as a result. If there are aspects > of the QoS approach that are outside draft-dsheikan's current remit, > those might still belong in RTCWEB. We might also be able to pull some > pieces out of draft-dhesikan for local progress, but we can't take the > full document as it stands. Thus nothing prevents the WG from creating a > new QoS related WG document assuming a different scope than the previous > document. If any WG participants see a need for such a document they are > welcome to submit an individual document as a proposal for such a WG > document. > > We note you protesting the lack of progress of draft-dhesikan in TSVWG, > and state that as one reason why this document should be in RTCWEB WG. > After reviewing mailing list discussion, meeting minutes and talking to > the TSVWG chairs, it appears that the main reason it hasn't been making > more progress have been the lack of an draft update to resolve the issue > raised in the Berlin TSVWG meeting. We have good hopes that the document > can make fair progress in TSVWG assuming author and RTCWEB participants > make timely contributions to the document. > > Harald, does this provide a clear enough way forward or, do you wish to > continue your appeal? > > Best Regards > > Magnus Westerlund > Ted Hardie > > > > > > On 2013-11-13 21:21, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> This mail concerns both administrative and technical issues, which is >> why it is explicitly copied to the ADs of RAI and TSV. I hope I have >> managed to keep them separate in the message. >> >> Magnus said in an email yesterday, concerning draft-ietf-rtcweb-qos: >> >>> Okay, we might not have been public enough on this. It was requested by >>> the Transport ADs quite some time ago that doing the QoS document in our >>> WG was not appropriate and requested us to direct the document to TSVWG. >>> Which was done, and where it hasn't made progress. >>> >>> You might have noted that James Polk did comment in the milestone part >>> in the monday session of IETF88 about our QoS milestone should be killed. >> I want to protest this - both practically and formally. >> >> To get the formal stuff out of the way first: >> >> Changing the deliverables of the working group *without telling the >> working group* is totally inappropriate in an open, consensus-driven >> process. >> Changing the deliverables of the working group *without telling the >> working group why* and *without allowing those reasons to be debated* is >> totally inappropriate in an open, consensus-driven process. >> >> I protest against this action. >> >> ACTION REQUEST 1: I request that this decision be declared null and >> void, and that the relevant ADs send out a message to RTCWEB (and TSVWG >> if appropriate) *PROPOSING* such an action, and giving a reasonable >> timeline for when they will make a decision based on mailing list feedback. >> >> In practice: >> >> The draft as it existed before its untimely demise consisted of two things: >> >> - A description of how QoS mechanisms could be useful in the RTCWEB use case >> - A description of existing mechanisms that could be appropriate for the >> RTCWEB use case >> >> The first one is clearly something that needs RTCWEB consensus. It seems >> to have no need for, nor likelyhood of gathering interest enough for, a >> TSVWG consensus. >> >> There could be some argument that the second part needs TSVWG consensus, >> especially if it was redefining any mechanisms, or it was making choices >> between mechanisms where TSVWG had strong opinions about which >> mechanisms should be chosen, but had not chosen to document that in any >> document on which IETF consensus had been declared (that is to say, >> existing RFCs). >> >> My archive shows 36 messages where the title refers to this draft. It >> shows no messages declaring that feedback has been incorporated and >> calling for new review - something that is usually necessary to get a WG >> consensus on any document. The debate hasn't been conclusive, but then, >> it hasn't been pushed hard either. >> >> The people who know how RTCWEB works are in this working group. Some of >> them may be in TSV, but I think the locus of knowledge for saying what >> QoS mechanisms are appropriate for RTCWEB are here, not in TSV. >> >> This results in my second request. >> >> ACTION REQUEST 2: I request that the chairs declare that based on the >> debate about the QoS functionality so far, the document should be >> resurrected, and will continue to be worked on in the RTCWEB working >> group, bringing in advice from TSVWG as required to make sure the >> descriptions of underlying mechanisms, and the choice of such >> mechanisms, is correct and appropriate. >> >> >> >> >
- [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision James Polk
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Wesley Eddy
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision James Polk
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Wesley Eddy
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Subha Dhesikan (sdhesika)
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Eggert, Lars
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Eggert, Lars
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Wesley Eddy
- [rtcweb] RTCWEB milestones (was: Protesting the Q… SM
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB milestones Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision Markus.Isomaki