Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision

Harald Alvestrand <> Fri, 20 December 2013 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC681AE0D3 for <>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:20:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uj9OX0xpdwVI for <>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:20:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:213:72ff:fe0b:80d8]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C301ADFCE for <>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:20:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAF539E467; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:20:44 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5XO+mzR97BCu; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:20:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B820E39E16F; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:20:42 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:20:57 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <>
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 <>, "" <>,,
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 

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.