Re: [rtcweb] Minutes for the Data Channel Presentations

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Bernard,

We definitely should try to improve the minutes with the context. But, I
do have to make an observation. We are commonly this poor at being exact
in referencing and being specific when discussing at the mic. Just
something for everyone to think about. That would help and reduce the
risk that a note-taker or chair cleaning up minutes to wrongly attribute
statements to the wrong context.

It would be good if the persons who actually made statements around this
could help clarify what was intended to be referenced.

Thanks

Magnus

On 2013-04-08 21:13, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Ted --
> 
> I have gone over the minutes from the DataChannel sessions.  It appears
> to me that there are some issues with the minutes.  Comments below on
> Randell's session.  More to follow. 
> 
> Presenter: Randell Jesep Slides:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides­86­rtcweb­5.pdf
> 
> [BA] What specific drafts did this presentation relate to?  I think it's
> quite important to be specific, since comments during the session need a
> context.  For example, did this presentation relate to the individual
> submission draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol, the RTCWEB WG work item
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel, or the MMUSIC WG work item
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp?  Since the presentation refers to SDP,  at
> least the MMUSIC WG work item seems relevant, no? 
> 
> Richard Ejzak asked what is our bottom line? He sees this as going backwards
> from interim. SDP negotiation removed
> 
> [BA] Randell's proposal did not propose to remove all SDP negotiation.
>  It leaves negotiation of DTLS port and SCTP associations in SDP, but
> removes SDP negotiation of streams.   It seems important to be specific
> about what was being discussed (e.g. modifications to
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp), so as to be able to understand what
> commenters were referring to. 
> 
> Peter Thatcher commented that he thinks the presenter's proposal is great
> 
> [BA] It is hard for me to understand what Peter meant without some
> additional context (e.g. was the comment only about the proposal to
> remove stream negotiation from SDP, or potentially a comment about
> draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol?)
> 
> Randell added that the solution DO have a protocol parameter with
> this still.
> 
> [BA] What "solution" is being referred to here?  The proposal in
> draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol?   A post to the mailing list?   The
> participants were discussing how streams are set up, but it wasn't clear
> to me what was being referred to. 
> 
> Harald Alverstrand stated that he Agree with this. Glad got data
> channel negotiation out of the document. 
> 
> [BA] Specifically I believe Harald was referring to Randell's proposal
> to remove stream negotiation from draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp.  Since
> stream negotiation is still in the document, "got" is not correct.  
> 
> Salvatore Loreto stated that he like this proposal ­ should negotiate
> only one way and should not use SDP.
> 
> [BA] Again, I believe that this meant "should not use SDP for stream
> negotiation".  
> 
> Jerome Marcon added that the draft does not really contain all this
> material now, therefore text needs to be added. Randell agreed that
> there need to be added
> 
> [BA] What does "the draft" refer to here?  draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp?
>  That makes the most sense to me since stream negotiation was still in
> there. 
> 
> Chairs asked how many had read the draft, which was couple of dozen. Chairs
> urge people to read and report new issues to the mailing list. Request that
> Randell takes the open issues in separate emails to the list.
> 
> [BA] Again what is "the draft" referring to here?  Since
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp didn't contain the material that was
> presented, was this what the chairs were referring to?  Or did they mean
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel?  I have read all the above docs, and
> have gone over the MeetEcho session, and still don't understand what was
> being referred to here, (or even why it was relevant). 
> 
> Salvatore commented that one open issue is if we are going to define
> prioritization between channels. Randell responded that prioritization is
> tricky as it interacts with congestion control
> 
> [BA] Prioritization is discussed in draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol,
> but not in the other documents, so was Salvatore referring to that
> document here?  
> 
> Randell responded that he has no issue of adding this to the list of
> open issues.
> 
> [BA] Open issues on what document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:28:45 -0700
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [rtcweb] Uploaded unified minutes for both days of IETF 86 meetings
> 
> Howdy,
> 
> We have now uploaded unified minutes with the corrections we received on
> the list; thanks to all who reviewed.  If you have not yet done so,
> there is still time to update, so please take a look.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Ted Hardie, for the chairs.
> 
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------