Re: Material for discussing scoping for version one

On 16/12/13 19:04, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2013 04:56 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
>>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <WebRTC 1.0 In%2FOut - W3C.pdf>
>>>
>>> This list might be ok as the start of TODO list of things we still need to
>>> resolve but the idea that default decision is "Ignore unknown mandatory
>>> constraints" is something that we could decide if we we do it now or later
>>> makes no sense. That is something we need to decide before we get the 1.0
>>> spec out.
>>
>> Agreed. If you look carefully in the "proposed decision" column, that
>> particular row has "no" as the proposed decision.
>>
>> In general, the proposed decisions are "Yes" (do it before LC), "Not in 1.0"
>> (we may or may not do it later) and "No" (we won't do it, and recommend that
>> the question not be revisited either).
>
> Are the contents of this column actually the chair's proposal for what
> we should do? Just a placeholder? I worked on this document, but
> they're certainly don't match my opinion.

See it as a signal that we should be careful with what we say should be 
included in 1.0 to be able to get done in a reasonable time. It does not 
reflect my wish either (I have a few things I'd really like to see), but 
I guess we will all need to compromise.

>
>
>>> Given most these things will need many minutes of discussion to even
>>> understand what they are, and that we one hour total, how do you plan to run
>>> the meeting? Let me make this much cripser, as chair, can you sort out a
>>> list of items you think are the right ones to consider for removal in the
>>> 1.0 spec?

We shipped the list as soon as it was available to us just to let 
everyone see it ASAP. We will look into sorting it (that is a good idea 
I think) in the coming couple of days.

>>
>>
>> We start out with this list. Then we remove things from it.
>
> I'm not really following this.
>
> -Ekr
>
>

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 19:20:06 UTC