IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 15:36 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 1A6891A1BB7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:36:56 -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 IfA_wLpLhu-k for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 259D61A1BB1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id l15so12657500wiw.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:36:48 -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=++kubQNiixsG9PGMdTffemWWcd+O2jSCgyboeWiMhls=; b=XrH17o0ZtwUNg/eLZoMcn+Rs2PRjCYZHzre0nJ1uq/UCA1j703ha+7QvWyfZ+YZZkh smWDxb1Crgd0nDcKnvjuqPZEW0yDS/N1MywO0OerXXxkE8ycpeD6Gg2xMQv4v4uv06xo gYpnSPQhBzmFsZHkg8j+bcTO763+bBLk5rWJU2uDS1xEOqFCaGPaJqWM35Lo3JghbKaH rS0j0+iLlkYfW8093ql0M54QkP2Do/8NoQVBxgMaUXXTFpgAXIyW/p+Cpd2kLW9PNUuG 5c/zVYjCRA+Z27MRDl4u0nSCPhvkeviMpGxBpnCIihLjQcAae3AMgu48WqG6G9a2aX5t c/6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnaCQt8K7ZOQ+Gu6icTbd36K7lDDdND4HkxvBdnNsWni+jWrFlDTXLWeEi/41FqiIgw3N3d
X-Received: by 10.180.205.163 with SMTP id lh3mr5868244wic.63.1418744207897; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:36:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.130.34 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:36:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi>
References: <548F0E28.8040503@andyet.net> <20141215192409.GN47023@verdi> <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net> <CA+9kkMDNhRdbzCs9vrqDeD4CoWWK1xS5o0z3jL0DvNpDuLfCPw@mail.gmail.com> <548F5E22.2040605@andyet.net> <548F5F0E.4050100@nostrum.com> <548F5FB8.9010300@andyet.net> <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOAfuscG28PMAu8JJ4yAAt1-ohnuqCaeoa+jkpDkJhhpw@mail.gmail.com> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:36:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOykRm1RCupB6905AOikXrcrmeSjE45Yqf1mHL3aed2Zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c381be8a0e40050a57206c"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/q4YC2J1UHPfPO8WNsWaecqYCirY
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
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 15:36:56 -0000

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:21 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:
>
> Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:03 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I cry "TILT"! Let's have the WGC calling consensus publish the
> >> text we're being asked to consent to.
> >
> > Huh? The relevant text is here:
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03#section-5
>
>    Perhaps it is; perhaps not: we'd have to listen to the audio to be
> sure. Even after hearing the audio once, I'm not quite sure...
>

Again, huh?

The version that was discussed in Honolulu is on the slides here:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf

on page 14. The text isn't exactly the same but it's substantively
the same as what's in the draft. Needless to say, having WG
consensus on the substance and letting the editor wordsmith
the text is totally normal IETF process. I haven't heard anyone
who was at HNL and in favor of the text on the slides object
that Adam's text in the draft doesn't reflect those slides.


   Besides, Eric isn't the WGC calling consensus.
>

No, the chairs did here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html

And this message clearly points to the slides above.

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email