It seems to me that if there are sane strongly-held objections to both of the alternatives on the table, then neither alternative is suitable for a standards-track RFC.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/28/13 2:29 AM, Eric Burger wrote:This strikes me as precisely the issue. If there's no
> More to the point, if the WG cannot come to IETF consensus, that
> itself is sufficient to let the IESG know the WG (a bunch of close
> experts) is not *READY* to select a single codec. If the WG is not
> *READY* to pick a single codec, neither is the IETF.
consensus there's no consensus.
Melinda