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

Hadriel Kaplan <> Fri, 14 June 2013 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA95021F9CED for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.569
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ssFEgnpL3-3 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57DFB21F9CDD for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r5EGwsWI028922 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:58:55 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5EGwttU027619 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:58:56 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5EGwttt006188; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:58:55 GMT
Received: from [] (/ by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:58:55 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Hadriel Kaplan <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:58:53 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Source-IP: []
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 14 Jun 2013 16:59:11 -0000

On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Magnus Westerlund <> 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:
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.
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.