Subject: [rtcweb] Doodle Poll for RTCWeb Virtual Interim Time

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 10:41:16 -0600

We are trying to pick a time to have an Virtual Interim meeting for the IETF RTCWeb WG on the topic of SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568 aka SDES)

Please fill out the poll at 

http://doodle.com/7eu5ddsveb8dfber

to indicate which times you can make. The proposed length of the meeting is 3 hours. 

Thanks, The Chairs

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:12:11 -0500

It would be nice if you could include the Maybe option in the poll.
Some of us may be able to re-arrange schedules if the optimal time for
others conflicts with something we already have scheduled.

Thanks,
Mary.

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 10:17:55 -0700

> We are trying to pick a time to have an Virtual Interim meeting for the IETF RTCWeb WG on the topic of SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568 aka SDES)

Is the intent of this interim to discuss various positions on the
topic (similar to the recent thread), or do you intend to (try to)
close the issue?

My experience with virtual interims is that it is very difficult to
assess consensus, mainly because it's impossible to get a word in
edgewise and only a noisy few end up speaking.

Much as I'd like to see this closed, I don't see much point in
discussing this topic on a phone call.  It's not quite as contentious
as the codec issue, but it's clear from the list discussion that there
are some strongly held views.  Those cannot be resolved in a call.

I could be convinced to change my mind if you could clearly identify
specific topics that need more exploration.  The only topic that needs
more exploration is EKT, which seems to be very poorly understood.
That alone doesn't justify an interim.