On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, John C. Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, John Foliot wrote: > > >> Thus, I again ask that those who have objections to the proposed >> Encrypted Media Extension specification limit them to specific technical >> problems with the current draft under discussion (and I note that some >> useful dialog has emerged from, among others, Robert O'Callahan), or, >> barring that, take the use-case requirement and create an alternative >> solution which can be brought forward as an alternative Extension Spec for >> consideration. >> >> > Leaving aside the rest of your mail (which I'm sure someone else can reply > to better than I), are you saying that we should not be allowed to decide > if a proposal is appropriate in scope or material (or something else > similar) for the working group? That seems to go against a lot of how I > understood this to work. > That decision (in scope or not) has already been made (it is in scope). It isn't being revisited here, even though some might like to do so.
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 21:37:01 UTC