Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 11 July 2013 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 2508E21F9A31 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 4F9yOafBLQvP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C3C21F9A10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orochi-2.roach.at (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6BJkpmM078737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:46:52 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <51DF0BA6.8040609@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:46:46 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBuCTdFsUMtmuBz6BnrSJMpHywEZU+x+m8ARnGprvzDzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaa+dyYmvsareEy1a9+7ketEFjNarsnRLXkpT_YHPTYni2w@mail.gmail.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1135D31FD@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <CABkgnnU9r9OT+XW=Ewf=25yBJGCEZxCVnu_r1D=Eu=f9wrV4Kg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnU9r9OT+XW=Ewf=25yBJGCEZxCVnu_r1D=Eu=f9wrV4Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87
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: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:46:59 -0000

On 7/11/13 14:37, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 11 July 2013 12:04, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
>>> In you last mail on the subject you mentioned that we will be discussing No Plan in Berlin together with plans A and B. Could we please add this to the agenda?
>> No. We believe that conversation needs to happen in the W3C WebRTC WG. I expect to see a message from W3C chairs on this at some point.
> I'm a little nervous about this.  Where does the decision on the
> separation of responsibilities (API vs. SDP) get made?

Jointly by the chairs of RTCWEB and WebRTC, based on 
<http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc-charter.html> and 
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/charters>, one would presume.

/a