Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Fri, 29 November 2013 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <grmocg@gmail.com>
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 707801AE02E; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:22:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 eTJg2bfhwSOV; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:22:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-x234.google.com (mail-oa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22571ACC89; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:22:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id h16so10121812oag.11 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:22:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=3Ml4TX7BVH5Jrnk9atmXVCVALsEpScy6EMRmZtz03CI=; b=JUQmVrfJT96w1L0hJSftIzChFSFzuN80XJnrp4zxsN6KA+bkmYQeRPlaoY5biPQLpi 7RbObCd7mHw45MizhK4CLJJzbQn6ZxM7Hexp1XNlllSZiaO6jLFRTl4TxoiMYOcdkhfB SQE5HsFRGqlx+XWQsGUCPVEjUdQqhtuGwCARlqkD1IZjdowz6Is7ltc5T0aIxTxml93o 2GAHzrUWS3YGQ3IV9ujrx9M8ZDhSAbc+R/o392/aeEaqe0qI5ZkimA7ns1voseFk/l9q ERBODLSD3/UTvsuSwyORxF9TBQ93wGEtKuh//kMu8UG9T4taktG1n3RWhw/G9zrdNVle OxEQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.18.102 with SMTP id v6mr572184obd.71.1385713373534; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:22:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.105.114 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:22:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D45703FF-109A-4FFF-92E9-1CC7767C52F7@nominum.com>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com> <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net> <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0EF1B8@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <D45703FF-109A-4FFF-92E9-1CC7767C52F7@nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:22:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNc=cGhOJNTwXY1z-5ZjisOOvX=EOYEf3htGXGcWRKBf6g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c339e663e12704ec4c8990
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 02:06:42 -0800
Cc: "rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
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: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:22:56 -0000

I'd prefer seeing the charter changed and no codec mandated.
The only reason to specify a must-implement is to increase interop; if
mandating a codec does not increase the amount of interop, why do it?

-=R


On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Nov 28, 2013, at 8:07 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <
> keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> > If you still believe it so, please tell me when you think the WG decided
> this.
>
> I'm just going by what people have told me.   If the working group hasn't
> indeed been asked whether they would accept the outcome of a coin toss, I
> would argue that that question should be asked.
>
>