- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:25:57 +0100
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
> <trackbot> Date: 12 January 2011 > > 1. ADMIN > > Yves: management team discussing this afternoon about charter > renewing > ... I think it makes sense to have another LC step, but very short, > 2 weeks > ... given the substantial changes made > ... and so we give time to get more comments > > Raphael: will this enable to have the RTSP part in the document? > > Yves: the problem will be to get implementations > > Davy: we have a server side implementation of RTSP > > Yves: I think that separate note for RTSP would be better > I would suggest to have the RTSP part in the document, and go for a second short LC. When entering in CR, mention in the exit criteria that RTSP part is at risk, and if not fully implemented, will be removed to enter PR. If not implemented at this stage, it would fall into a Note, and would allow MF to continue its track. Thierry.
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 15:30:25 UTC