Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 29 November 2013 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 3B0901AE047; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:08:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 O8uDQih-JHuh; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:08:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E0C1ADFE1; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:08:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-122.lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id rAT17q7k012506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:07:54 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id rAT17pTK005877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 29 Nov 2013 02:07:51 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.203]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 02:07:52 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
Thread-Index: AQHO7FvNsYxRjdMaJkWnvYaO/CT08po7YxVQ
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 01:07:51 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0EF1B8@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.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>
In-Reply-To: <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
Cc: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.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 01:08:08 -0000

While I don't believe the WG would be positive on that, I do not believe that question has been put to a consensus call. So I would question the word specifically. 

If you still believe it so, please tell me when you think the WG decided this.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: 28 November 2013 17:03
> To: Dave Crocker
> Cc: rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Eliot Lear; 
> rtcweb@ietf.org; Eric Burger; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
> 
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> > As merely one obvious example, people can simply be tired of the 
> > impasse and eagerly seek progress and be willing to settle on any 
> > mechanism they think will fairly break it -- even if it 
> works against 
> > the outcome they prefer.
> 
> The one tidbit you may be missing is that the working group 
> specifically chose not to do a coin toss.   So "willing to 
> settle for any mechanism" clearly doesn't apply in this case.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>