Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-02.txt

This last round was triggered by Leon Geyser suggesting that we put 
REQUIRED in there.

I'm happy with the proposal made in January (lowercase "recommended"), 
weakly opposed to SHOULD / RECOMMENDED and strongly opposed to MUST / 
REQUIRED. I'm perfectly willing to go along with a chairs' declaration 
that the WG has consensus for SHOULD / RECOMMENDED, but it's up to the 
chairs to make the call.

I'll try to remain silent on the issue until the chairs have spoken.

On 09/09/2013 08:47 AM, stephane.proust@orange.com wrote:
> Let's avoid reopening the whole discussion about this normative wording!
>
> I would like to recall again that the proposal from Bo comes from a compromise statement that was almost reached in e-mail discussions last January (from an initial proposal from Andrew Allen) and almost reached now again
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg08501.html
>
> So it confirms clearly that the consensus of the group is on the proposed text and especially because it does not include any formal normative language.
> So I would strongly suggest to not reinvent anything new and close now this long discussion on the last proposal from Bo on which several supports have been expressed and no objections, possibly with the slight modification suggested by Mo Zanaty on the place where the text can be added (beginning of section 3) which is a good idea that I support as well
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg08750.html
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Martin Thomson
> Envoyé : samedi 7 septembre 2013 00:40
> À : Harald Alvestrand
> Cc : rtcweb@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-02.txt
>
> On 6 September 2013 15:27, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> That's why I'm so reluctant to use the word in cases where I think a
>> large part of the implementors are going to ignore it, and where (in
>> my opinion) no great harm comes to interoperability when they do.
> I tend to agree, though we have to be careful not to end up with the RFC 6919, Section 1 problem at the same time.
>
> I still try to do the "MUST, unless ..." form rather than SHOULD.
> SHOULD is a bit wishy-washy.
>
> In this case, I don't see the point of saying anything at all.  I'm sure that browser implementers will add what they believe will be best for their users.  And avoiding transcoding is good, which should be sufficient.  Ultimately, we're all grown-ups, and having the IETF tells us to eat our vegetables is insulting.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>