Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sat, 21 December 2013 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 D2CC21ADF63 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:26:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 p8vKqFFwcnDf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:26:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7A41AD627 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hn9so5011807wib.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:26:03 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=P9RqjidDEpsxYGXLP6+rTCgA+jdpvJjaWkg1xLlkYsg=; b=c9hkfrlor+tQlaxayoNhDlrB7MVjp9BHrP1mHFuvq7U2VmwS5RZ72lra1vJ9l0VIrf 7cxAeOdUAAj/MIb02voJditJ5Q203+amL/yRmllpUPyTPP6Tx+EEUiaUuBm2DYLa/CXG kVooNqay76TnXQip3wpbZfg4j1yCtPufhG3HbM8Yf/expltX+daDqE3F7cQ9j/R+KJJ+ YRZ7AK3b0ml5hFebJRAIKoc5i6yStFB9+yzcMggiUZ9dj6JNVQ69HU9RXhUqPLDAhOYa Z3VEPOyWF7m5Ee3btxEC1ALbZ9Y0VpJ65aDt2XUJTeDRLZvgtTPAwjgT/LVtzuG/gW0W s5Yg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkW4WbRReMWYiTVbrTRpVfs9PryDk/LmkrZd76sbzu+5UsdBfGKtcpFp6Em+pfl0qqDSuJi
X-Received: by 10.181.13.166 with SMTP id ez6mr12750262wid.1.1387650363731; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:26:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.54.194 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:25:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [173.34.178.200]
In-Reply-To: <CACrD=+_iLWGzNPMNqEjGzK9L3S1_tCsvCu52=NsFHXeuyGhJbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP7VpsVy0sfZpGQ2Vj=NGnvNpSjRhFc+bSaDyCaLbTLkGUjRVA@mail.gmail.com> <CEDB11FC.3E281%stewe@stewe.org> <CACrD=+8dMmjYWwQxw=8f97KA7sYOUCd1QrEtQMvdFqDPk7Ts6A@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPnE1-Uqk+ST3tZ5O706=rN4wxBapBxM+R_npHD0uzjJg@mail.gmail.com> <CACrD=+_iLWGzNPMNqEjGzK9L3S1_tCsvCu52=NsFHXeuyGhJbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:25:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMePSkbqq9J9Ky6m9XswuWyoCBJLGapMPTrsSFyeW=eHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)
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: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:26:09 -0000

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com> wrote:
> I never said there was a consensus call. The industry is deploying
> Opus where they are loathe to deploy VP8.  There is obviously wide
> belief it is safe to do so.  That's what consensus means.
>
> The IETF neither legislates nor monopolizes consensus.

In the context of an IETF WG, "determined by consensus" generally means that
the WG made a determination. If the WG didn't make such a determination
but some other group did, it would probably be appropriate to qualify the group
that made the determination. For instance:

"Opus had a number of IPR declarations against it determined by
the consensus of those who thought they were completely spurious to
be completely spurious."


> The IETF didn't invent rough consensus. Nor it has stamped out the
> idea elsewhere.  I'm not playing silly gotcha word games, and neither
> was Jack.

Actually, I think that's pretty much what the above bit about the
IETF not legislating consensus consists of.


> If I (we) are right or wrong, it's on the merit of the arguments, not
> use of punctuation, mispelingz, or brainos, or intentional misreadings
> of others' points.  Honest misunderstanding is one thing.  Not caring
> if you understand [and feigning outrage] is quite another.

What an interesting passive aggressive way of accusing me of
acting in bad faith (seeing as you're responding to me, I'm assuming
that's who this is directed at).


Let's recap the history.

 Jack wrote that:
"Opus had several of these. It is still MTI for WebRTC because the
group was convinced the claims are spurious. "

In support of this, you wrote:

You wrote that "Opus had a number of IPR declarations against it determined by
consensus to be completely spurious.  I read nothing incorrect in
Jack's comment."

How shocking that someone would read your message as having to do with
the IETF WG, given that Jack's statement referenced "the group"

-Ekr