Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 08 August 2012 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FE811E80FB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.253, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBpDwaQAr+jM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DAB111E80BA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9E439E149; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:57:20 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5D-ASrlixJrx; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:57:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:be30:5bff:fede:bcdc]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C94B639E106; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:57:19 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <50228C5F.8010403@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:57:19 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
References: <pm9g3f539oh0iyg0y0j4elbn.1344273079260@email.android.com> <81579634-CC55-46FF-8C3B-94EB5019786A@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <81579634-CC55-46FF-8C3B-94EB5019786A@phonefromhere.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>, "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:57:23 -0000

On 08/07/2012 11:57 AM, Tim Panton wrote:
> Ok, the timing is unfortunate, but can you honestly say that we didn't know that this was skype/microsofts opinion? We just chose to ignore it because it was inconvenient.
>
> Now that it is out there, are we seriously going to ignore a document with _those_ authors from a major browser maker and a team with extensive experience in the field jus because it is late!?!?
Speaking with WG chair hat on:

At the time of previous "what is the appropriate level" discussion, the 
WG chairs concluded that there was a rough WG consensus to stay with a 
higher-level API rather than trying to move the level of the API 
downwards towards a "low level API".

Since that time and until this week, there has been no specific proposal 
to be evaluated, and the main proponents of such an  API have been 
silent. Normal behaviour is to assume that a previous consensus 
declaration stands until there is new technical evidence to be 
evaluated, and proceed with further work on that basis.

So I can't agree that "because it was inconvenient" is an appropriate 
characterization.

               Harald