Subject: [rtcweb] UPDATED Draft minutes for Wednesday session of IETF 83

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:38:41 -0700

The proceedings seem to be set up to prefer a single set of minutes,
rather than one per session.  I've uploaded a set now that includes
the ones Magnus originally put up, plus minutes from the second
session.  Many thanks to all of our note takers for their hard work.

Please review the minutes and send corrections,

thanks,

Ted Hardie

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Magnus Westerlund
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> WG,
>
> I have uploaded a first version of minutes for the first WG session in
> Paris. Please review so that the minutes accurately reflects your
> activities in the WG meeting session.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-rtcweb.htm
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:41:52 +0200

> Please review the minutes and send corrections,

A link to the version containing both sessions are:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-rtcweb.txt

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:01:14 +0200

Thanks for these!

The only serious comments I have are on the codec discussion near the 
end; otherwise, there are grammar nits.

Notes:
- Please convert to ASCII. Quotes and non-ASCII characters are broken.
- "One attack by claim to link to something, but what you really connect 
to is some other site"
Grammar issue: by claim -> by claiming
- "In Jingle to enable early response with the ICE candidates and the 
username and password are anyway needed." -> could not parse this 
sentence. Please reword.
- One instance of "Collin Perkins" (misspelled name)
- "straight forward" -> "straightforward"
- "Regarding the key-exchange and the round trip time. We will
encounter cases, like the trombone where the signaling server is far
away and the media peer is close." - the first full stop should be a 
comma for grammatical correctness.
- "no overhead in a waste majority of cases." -> "no overhead in the 
vast majority of cases"
- "The chairs declared No Consensus between these two options due to very
evenly strength hums." - grammatically, it needs to be "even strength 
hums"; I would formulate it as "approximately even strength hums", given 
that I don't remember them as *that* even (but I was not at the front of 
the room).

- "Harald: I hope we can limit the number of cases where SDP manipulation
is limited." - I certainly hope I said "needed" as the last word.
- "Harald regards hints as steering wheel and brake pedal,
while SDP is plugging in to engine control. Hopes can do what we need
via hints." - "in to" -> "into"; "Hopes can do" -> "He hopes that we can 
do".

- "you are talking of SCT/DTLS/UDP." -> SCTP/DTLS/UDP
- "Tim (Mozilla)" -> Tim Terriberry
- Tim P -> Tim Panton

"Cullen: raise your hand in favor of H.261
                                     H.264
                                     VP8"

The numbers (or proportions) need to be part of the minutes, and the 
minutes need to make it clear that this was a straw poll, not a hum for 
consensus (Ted made that very clear, but it's not clear from the minutes.)

Allistair ??: The discussion was the same in H.323, and G.711 was
selected as audio codec because of IPR free. None believes it would be
useful, but this stopped the discussions.

I believe this was followed by a remark saying a huge amount of current 
traffic is G.711 or worse.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:09:42 -0600

Harald, thank you very much for the careful read. I have updated addressing all your comments as well as some other fixes I got. 

Latest minutes are at

On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Thanks for these!
> 
> The only serious comments I have are on the codec discussion near the end; otherwise, there are grammar nits.
> 
> Notes:
> - "One attack by claim to link to something, but what you really connect to is some other site"
> - "In Jingle to enable early response with the ICE candidates and the username and password are anyway needed." -> could not parse this sentence. Please reword.
> away and the media peer is close." - the first full stop should be a comma for grammatical correctness.
> - "no overhead in a waste majority of cases." -> "no overhead in the vast majority of cases"
> evenly strength hums." - grammatically, it needs to be "even strength hums"; I would formulate it as "approximately even strength hums", given that I don't remember them as *that* even (but I was not at the front of the room).
> 
> via hints." - "in to" -> "into"; "Hopes can do" -> "He hopes that we can do".
> 
> The numbers (or proportions) need to be part of the minutes, and the minutes need to make it clear that this was a straw poll, not a hum for consensus (Ted made that very clear, but it's not clear from the minutes.)
> 
> I believe this was followed by a remark saying a huge amount of current traffic is G.711 or worse.
> 
>