Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-02.txt

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>wrote:

> This last round was triggered by Leon Geyser suggesting that we put
> REQUIRED in there.
>
> I'm happy with the proposal made in January (lowercase "recommended"),
> weakly opposed to SHOULD / RECOMMENDED and strongly opposed to MUST /
> REQUIRED. I'm perfectly willing to go along with a chairs' declaration that
> the WG has consensus for SHOULD / RECOMMENDED, but it's up to the chairs to
> make the call.
>
> I'll try to remain silent on the issue until the chairs have spoken.


I would like to hear from the chairs as well. It was not my impression that
we had consensus on any kind of recommendation here but rather that
those against a recommendation had merely grown tired of arguing.

I would suggest that we schedule a small amount of discussion time
at the next IETF to resolve this (20 min should be sufficient) and verify
consensus. However, I will defer to the chairs' judgement.

-Ekr


>
> On 09/09/2013 08:47 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
>> Let's avoid reopening the whole discussion about this normative wording!
>>
>> I would like to recall again that the proposal from Bo comes from a
>> compromise statement that was almost reached in e-mail discussions last
>> January (from an initial proposal from Andrew Allen) and almost reached now
>> again
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/rtcweb/current/**msg08501.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg08501.html>
>>
>> So it confirms clearly that the consensus of the group is on the proposed
>> text and especially because it does not include any formal normative
>> language.
>> So I would strongly suggest to not reinvent anything new and close now
>> this long discussion on the last proposal from Bo on which several supports
>> have been expressed and no objections, possibly with the slight
>> modification suggested by Mo Zanaty on the place where the text can be
>> added (beginning of section 3) which is a good idea that I support as well
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/rtcweb/current/**msg08750.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg08750.html>
>>
>> Stéphane
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : [e-mail] [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.**org<[e-mail]>]
>> De la part de Martin Thomson
>> Envoyé : samedi 7 septembre 2013 00:40
>> À : Harald Alvestrand
>> Cc : [e-mail]
>> Objet : Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-02.txt
>>
>> On 6 September 2013 15:27, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I'm so reluctant to use the word in cases where I think a
>>> large part of the implementors are going to ignore it, and where (in
>>> my opinion) no great harm comes to interoperability when they do.
>>>
>> I tend to agree, though we have to be careful not to end up with the RFC
>> 6919, Section 1 problem at the same time.
>>
>> I still try to do the "MUST, unless ..." form rather than SHOULD.
>> SHOULD is a bit wishy-washy.
>>
>> In this case, I don't see the point of saying anything at all.  I'm sure
>> that browser implementers will add what they believe will be best for their
>> users.  And avoiding transcoding is good, which should be sufficient.
>>  Ultimately, we're all grown-ups, and having the IETF tells us to eat our
>> vegetables is insulting.
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>>
>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>> ______________________________**______________________________**_
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
>> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
>> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
>> ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
>> information that may be protected by law;
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>> delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>> been modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>