Re: [rtcweb] clarifications on current discussions - re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Tue, 16 December 2014 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 55C2F1A873E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:03:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 dp9OPshHKi1Y for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:03:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com (mail-lb0-f180.google.com [209.85.217.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B9B51A1B99 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:03:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id l4so11401336lbv.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:03:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=sYtlie8igHAkUPIrhofRIPVRGOMOmdtPs/IqPAD87E0=; b=cmUfbVT7PIK4t+OUfRtc47W+6Kj3ov1QdOslp1hgpxgBn+8zOsnBk8o6PPDrqzry9x g8QjVY16JPzmzix+u2lZz3FI4ddIQ2b2mlG4fzQJ502OWG75oJvHmRc0VhGgY1KQkjZW dbhx81QJafSGKiQpZU4S4oJYVBLn511YkT1yi4FJypFf76ViAcJjQgGEYdb035gdRE9g YY+dpsyaNC6B6okHcdueFSW+jY0cbYJeSLKGYCpD5egbNn7B1j8PRit+A3WBQwD/PLgl wTGys+scDn1/mfQ/Z2xTWZpjTwWrYcKcPKBbPNSSla9KQJTuFd0crnEF5QTFAnusbAaV Tavw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkxzgDaF2URoU62T9a43I2CwStRKSnPMkaAm9bkBTJw1xGNNtCq8QUNz7zr4kaWFUxmfn1t
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.170.36 with SMTP id aj4mr37224307lbc.3.1418760208672; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:03:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.12.215 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:03:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54908A65.1010705@gmail.com>
References: <54908A65.1010705@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:03:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgR-c2=9+__ujhrSPxC47mn9nfirK9fb_8=91FRWw-tYtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c261fc427fc1050a5ada98
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/VXbEhVhiy20vEUSUH8k5JplvC-k
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] clarifications on current discussions - re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec
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 20:03:32 -0000

<hat type="AD" subtype="process-steward"/>

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the question.  The goal of Sean's message is indeed to seek
consensus on the codec question.  The time for discussion is to allow for
any other issues to be raised, beyond those that were raised in the room in
Honolulu.  At the end of the comment period on Friday, Sean will review the
discussion and make a determination as to whether a rough consensus has
been reached.

--Richard


On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> With many forks of the thread and various opinions, can anyone clarify
> the expectation of these discussions. Ideally will be the WG chairs
> stating what is the role of the current discussions, specially to the
> initial thread with the subject 'confirming sense of the room: mti
> codec' started by Sean Turner - link to archive:
>
>    - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html
>
> My understanding was that it is about clarifying what happened during
> the sessions in Honolulu, not a call on consensus for the proposal. I
> get the feeling that many understood it differently, being the call on
> consensus for video MTI codecs. I saw many people simply stating there
> position in replies to this thread, which is ok if they want to
> say/reiterate it, but not addressing any of the points set for
> discussion by Sean.
>
> For a call on consensus I would expect to be with a explicit subject,
> including or pointing to the (draft of) text to be adopted.
>
> Which side got it wrong here?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>