Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision

Gonzalo Camarillo <> Thu, 14 November 2013 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F7311E8178 for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:10:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.628
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.621, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rlPp3U0FQtbF for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:10:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E6311E811D for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:10:47 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7eff8e000000eda-43-5284858331ac
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EA.EB.03802.38584825; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:10:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:10:43 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:10:42 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW5za0uQwdol1hbH+rrYLPZun8do sfZfO7vFtHkfGR1YPK5MuMLqsWTJTyaPL5c/swUwR3HZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlXD39ib1guWzF 6e8fmBoYZ4l3MXJySAiYSLS0H2KBsMUkLtxbz9bFyMUhJHCIUeLS8Q2sEM4aRomrc7axgVTx CmhLLFvwnwnEZhFQlZhyZj1YN5uAhcSWW/fBbFGBKIkN2y+wQNQLSpyc+QTMFhHQkXi4vwGs l1kgVuLrhLVgtrCAocTF2+/BaoSAanY9eg62i1NAV2LOlxeMENdJSmx50c4O0asnMeVqCyOE LS+x/e0cZohebYnlz1pYJjAKzUKyehaSlllIWhYwMq9iZM9NzMxJLzfaxAgM5YNbfqvuYLxz TuQQozQHi5I474e3zkFCAumJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5qcWHGJk4OKUaGLest05UT7jAsGhV9rVX RlITdig3MYdJKRvfi1/K0Nnw+t2d9UvqMqWNa1NnPLxqeuV31KwtHyp+l+r3PVv8JVHakNEt Y7rMkhvuK30zojpbzpy0/TI747vJvT8KVbK1iwpYKh5se9YZLzfzVMT7dW9UqpgimDSPXeg4 PsuNf0uqC3+0wvNVjUosxRmJhlrMRcWJADIFp6UzAgAA
Cc:, "" <>,
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:10:57 -0000

Hi Harald,

thanks for your email. I will touch base with the TSV ADs and with Wes
(former TSV AD) and get a status update on this piece of work. It will
take a few days, though (when Martin will be back, as Spencer also
mentioned in this thread). We will keep the group posted.



On 13/11/2013 10:21 PM, 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.