Re: [rtcweb] clarifications on current discussions - re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Tue, 16 December 2014 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 EFC101A0052 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:25:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 Cr0QwMQTWRCt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:25:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com (mail-lb0-f180.google.com [209.85.217.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E0EC1A0049 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id l4so11587569lbv.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:25:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0iXjf52X19UEkxjoV80dlQn/6v32TO+xXozWEr6pe5Y=; b=Kjf11J70VYlD0JmVe85LHLMg3Y1iQvA7KXaR/6FvCSviRBaxqMUGqzxbjldS8g6+VX 3q4iw8uHH6fa8z8v4n+/kAZKDp3NfBlMmW8PX32xric9zUisL16Sb9mZ+Sg2nV2fMWC2 08r+70FEhHZt2wltxWLE3OYPE7UOjolJxTpLIO3oJefe3ng2GjhRtvwcxu7Q5DW1GXRu N1QmuwYgzguGG8GflZnSwgZIcQyn5ec0L0Khl0dRoiuKJ5kX905BjPIlr3wMzwvKLcBt O+hkO/PCud0PKtAEFW6wdI4r7FloA5b1YgE6Khg96V71pgvh1lWnrqBTMGrAZIwJMciy DA8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnoJfkX/dUG3s9Jyj53ADQScboN9cXr9TFHJ6tCgNUsqPkrZXW20PKPrQtxb9lUSsePNDIC
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.170.194 with SMTP id ao2mr38666480lac.12.1418768703674; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.12.215 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:25:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54909562.7060504@gmail.com>
References: <54908A65.1010705@gmail.com> <CAL02cgR-c2=9+__ujhrSPxC47mn9nfirK9fb_8=91FRWw-tYtQ@mail.gmail.com> <54909562.7060504@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:25:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQLZD_V_YFOazjSzmB63XHLpAzG-69XZw1y4=P6c+M=2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011615f299f052050a5cd407
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/n5DGZLbL0XMmL4PwN3NErxrN-0M
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] clarifications on current discussions - re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec
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, 16 Dec 2014 22:25:19 -0000

Hey Daniel,

I think Sean's original message was pretty clear about this:
"""
After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and typing
the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in the room to
add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.  In
keeping with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on the list.
"""

Nonetheless, if you think people have missed this point, feel free to
prompt them to comment in that thread.

Thanks,
--Richard



On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>  Hi Richard,
>
> thanks for the clarification! IMO, the initial message content was not
> stating explicitly this is the goal and apparently it misled the
> expectation from some of us.
>
> Maybe it would be appropriate to have a fresh message sent by WG chairs/AD
> (or other IETF 'official' involved in the process) to say it explicitly by
> subject, just in case someone (else than me) didn't understand (from
> current discussions) that there is an ongoing call on consensus for video
> MTI codec. There are still three days left that can prevent negative
> reactions later.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On 16/12/14 21:03, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> <hat type="AD" subtype="process-steward"/>
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thanks for the question.  The goal of Sean's message is indeed to seek
> consensus on the codec question.  The time for discussion is to allow for
> any other issues to be raised, beyond those that were raised in the room in
> Honolulu.  At the end of the comment period on Friday, Sean will review the
> discussion and make a determination as to whether a rough consensus has
> been reached.
>
>  --Richard
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <
> miconda@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> With many forks of the thread and various opinions, can anyone clarify
>> the expectation of these discussions. Ideally will be the WG chairs
>> stating what is the role of the current discussions, specially to the
>> initial thread with the subject 'confirming sense of the room: mti
>> codec' started by Sean Turner - link to archive:
>>
>>    - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html
>>
>> My understanding was that it is about clarifying what happened during
>> the sessions in Honolulu, not a call on consensus for the proposal. I
>> get the feeling that many understood it differently, being the call on
>> consensus for video MTI codecs. I saw many people simply stating there
>> position in replies to this thread, which is ok if they want to
>> say/reiterate it, but not addressing any of the points set for
>> discussion by Sean.
>>
>> For a call on consensus I would expect to be with a explicit subject,
>> including or pointing to the (draft of) text to be adopted.
>>
>> Which side got it wrong here?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>>
>> --
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
>