Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:21 AM, John Leslie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 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?

   No, "still".

> 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.

   You prove my point...

> Needless to say, having WG consensus on the substance and letting the
> editor wordsmith the text is totally normal IETF process.

   In some cases, yes. IMHO, this is not one of them. YMMV...

> 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.

   Probably you haven't...

> Besides, Eric isn't the WGC calling consensus.
> 
> No, the chairs did here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html
] 
] From: Sean Turner <turners at ieca.com>
] At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively discussion
] about codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec compromise."
] The compromise text that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4]
] (which is a slight editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]).
] 
] This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.

   Actually, as I read this more carefully, that isn't a consensus call.
Sean goes on to dismiss the objections he heard in the room:
] 
] In the room, I heard the following objections and responses (and I'm
] paraphrasing here), which I'll take the liberty of categorizing as
] IPR, Time, and Trigger:
] 
] 1) IPR:
] Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict what a
] particular organization feels comfortable with including in their
] browser implementations.
] Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known. There is even a
] draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8:
] draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation.  The sense of the room was still
] that adopting the compromise text was appropriate.

   Sean is stating his view of consensus-of-the-room.

] 2) Time:
] 2.1) Time to consider decision:
] Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at this
] meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide some the
] opportunity to attend in person.
] Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion would be
] revisited @ IETF 91. The first agenda proposal for the WG included this
] topic, and the topic was never removed by the chairs. More importantly,
] all decisions are confirmed on list; in person attendance is not
] required to be part of the process.

   Sean is defending the action of the WGCs.

] 2.2) Time to consider text:
] Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
] Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and H.264
] was among the options in the straw poll conducted more than six months
] ago. All decisions are confirmed on list so there will be ample time
] to discuss the proposal.

   Sean is specifically saying the text should be discussed on-list.

] 3) Trigger:
] Objection: The "trigger" sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong because
] it's promising that the future IETF will update this specification.
] Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the current
] proposal can be changed through the consensus process at any other time.

   Sean is specifically saying the "trigger" should be discussed
on-list.

] After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and
] typing the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in
] the room to add (aka "shove") the proposed text into
] draft-ietf-rtcweb-video. In keeping with IETF process, I am confirming
] this consensus call on the list.

   This _is_ calling for consensus.

   But Sean omitted saying _what_ text; and agreed that the exact text
may not have been clear to those in the room.

] If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do
] by December 19th.

   (And folks have been doing so.)

   I have asked on-list for the exact text before raising my issues,
since my issues relate to the text, not the choosing to have two MTIs.

> And this message clearly points to the slides above.

   I don't find it helpful to attack the people who raise issues. YMMV.

   But what EKR thinks really doesn't matter. He is not a WGC.

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>