Re: New functionality in PR - priority

On 05/22/2015 05:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I'm having a little trouble squaring this with my understanding of the
> proposed decision policy. Isn't this a situation where "editors bring
> technical solutions in the specifications that have not been reviewed
> by the group"?

It is a case where a contributor brings a technical solution to the
attention of the editors, and asks for its inclusion.

The reason for my mail was to bring it to the attention of the group.

> With this as an example, can someone explain to me what they believe
> the procedure for integrating a PR like this into the spec is supposed
> to be?

The chairs determine whether the PR represents one of:

- Previously established group consensus (say, from a discussion at a
previous meeting)
- Editorial changes that don't change anything that anyone cares much about
- A contribution that has a significant change where it is not certain
that it represents group consensus.

If the third condition exists, the chairs (or the contributors) need to
bring it to the attention of the mailing list to see whether it's in
alignment with the consensus or not; this is why I sent the mail.

If the chairs determine that group consensus supports its inclusion, we
will ask the editors to merge it.

If we determine that the group consensus does not support its inclusion,
we won't; based on group discussion, we will ask for changes to the
contribution, ask for a contribution that reflects an alternate
approach, or refuse the contribution.

Doesn't seem much different from what we have been doing.

> -Ekr
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Harald Alvestrand
> < <>> wrote:
>     Hi,
>     just a heads-up (or something like that):
>     There's a pull request in the queue for adding a "priority" field to
>     RTPSender and to DataChannels:
>     This is to support the priority mechanism specified here:
>     draft-ietf-rtcweb-transport section 4
>     draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage section 12.1.3
>     draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos
>     I don't think there's anything controversial in it, but it's nice that
>     the WG is aware of what's happening when we add new functionality into
>     the spec (even when it's been talked about for a long time).
>     Harald

Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 16:13:59 UTC