Re: [xrblock] Poll for progressing the QoE

On 1/31/2012 12:34 PM, Shida Schubert wrote:
> 
> All;
> 
>  I need to see what WG thinks on the matter below for 
> us to progress the QoE milestone. 

Not at all.

> 
>  If you have no opinions on the matter, please indicate 
> it as well. 
> 
>  Many Thanks
>   Shida
> 
> On Jan 19, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Shida Schubert wrote:
> 
>>
>> All;
>>
>> Although a poll for draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring ended in
>> favor of adopting the draft, the comments provided by Colin are worth
>> noting as we move forward.

No.  As you state yourself above, the consensus of the WG is to adopt
the draft.  Adopt it.  As for Colin's comments being "worth noting",
that's all they are, until the draft is adopted.

>>
>> I do have some questions which I think will help us clarify 
>> the way forward. 

The way forward is not to go backward.  Adopt the draft.

>>
>> A. There are three segment types defined (1. each media 
>>   sent in separate RTP stream, 2. Layered video session, 
>>   3. Multi-channel audio) in the draft,  do we see a need for 
>>   all three right now or in near  future (say next 12 months) ? 
>>
>> B. OR are we happy with only covering one for now (Likely 
>>   the 1. as I understand people are most interested in the 1.) 
>>   and create a draft when there is a real need for 2. and 3.?
>>
>> C. If answer is yes to question A., do we want to see the 
>>   draft split into three as Colin proposed or have them all 
>>   defined in single draft as it currently is. 
>>
>> I asked the AD if we can split the drafts into 3 drafts under 
>> single milestone but I want to make sure we do that after 
>> we agree as a WG that we need all three segment types 
>> RIGHT NOW before we do so. 

Nonsense.  If, AFTER the draft is adopted as a WG document, the WG
decides to split it into 3 or 4 drafts or chop it into confetti, that is
their privilege.

>>
>> We have a lot of new items that people are interested in 
>> working on that are not covered in our milestones, so I 
>> want to make sure we focus on items that are "MUST 
>> have" rather than "MAY need it in future" or "NICE to have". 
>>
>> Regards
>> Shida
>> _______________________________________________
>> xrblock mailing list
>> xrblock@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock