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

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 <mailto: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://twitter.com/#%21/miconda> -
>     http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda