Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Tue, 07 January 2014 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.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 7D9C21ADF38 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 05:12:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.739
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, 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 IeklKgE2w9Sv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 05:12:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E171ADBD4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 05:12:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id s07D71bf005553 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 15:07:02 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.242]) by 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.002; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 13:07:01 +0000
From: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
To: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, <harald@alvestrand.no>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>, <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org>, <tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision
Thread-Index: AQHPC6DqKO6iAdQaHkeU/buOWugUBZp5MhPg
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 13:07:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A17C9CC@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <5283DF61.9060807@alvestrand.no> <52B31AF0.60107@ericsson.com> <52B32AE7.1080100@dcrocker.net> <52B40A1E.6030308@ericsson.com> <52B481A9.6010008@dcrocker.net> <52CBEDAF.4030808@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <52CBEDAF.4030808@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Nokia Internal Use Only;
x-titus-version: 3.5.9.3
x-headerinfofordlp:
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7IrugGKdmF1QOuEl2g/qaJCaA0orAvC3bdQ/Z/jJsWzjWB7irlJTB6RSzBLnD3TktetMREHID8wy9UcLgap/NfiUlEPXa1MdNUzKwU0gazYiw+Btbzyl3R4HSuozmTEaA9cYRkWL2mKs5IVxbRcHGmuqio8F+/ZmHkZHPllFmhG+XFAVdZ09RVtW05noK0cNndA9Eo14bqgBHWWCcyU7ioqA/QGuqNddHT8tIE3mxKUo3
x-originating-ip: [10.236.6.23]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision
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: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 13:12:48 -0000

Hi,

Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> 
> On 2013-12-20 18:43, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> > That's not what you've got in rtcweb.  Quite the opposite.  Just look
> > at the wg statistics.  Lots of documents.  1.5 years.  Nothing published.
> > Blocked on a decision about a component.   I also hear continuing
> > reports of mutual suspicion amongst participants.
> 
> I would note that this WG is trying to do something that isn't that common in
> IETF. We are actually doing what I refer to us umbrella standardization.
> Putting a large number of components together into a system. I at least are
> not surprised that it has taken this amount of time to get where we are now.
> 

I think it is fair to note that RTCWEB's track record in this regard is no worse than any of the SIP-related WG's is TSV or RAI area was when SIP was in its most active phase 10+ years ago. I don't know if there are good examples in other IETF areas where progress has been faster and how that has been achieved. Usually WG's deal with a single core protocol and a few extensions and that is hard enough already. 

Markus