Hi, I want to thank everybody for all the input on this issue. Let me address a few of the points that have been brought up during the discussions. People seem to have different views on which processes MUST be used at the IETF when developing documents, which ones MAY be used, and which ones MUST NOT be used. Given the strong disagreements we have seen, it may be useful to agree on a set of guidelines and document them at some point. In the mean time, let me clarify how the RTCWeb WG (or at least some people in that community) interpret the IETF process. The view a part of the RTCWeb community shares is the following: Documents MUST go through both a WGLC and an IETF LC where the community needs to reach rough consensus on them. That is, per standard IETF processes, documents that reach rough consensus at those stages are progressed while documents that don't reach rough consensus are *not* progressed. In summary: proposals are evaluated first by the WG and then by the IETF community as a whole using a consensus mechanism. Where people seem to disagree, often strongly, is on how proposals that will be put forward for such evaluation by the WG and the IETF community can be generated. Some people think that processes that are somewhat related to voting MUST NOT be used within a WG at all. Other people think that using processes such as straw polls or some types of voting can help the WG understand better the situation at hand and help build consensus, which will be *ultimately* evaluated in the WGLC and IETF LCs on the document. In short, some people think that the important fact is that documents need to reach consensus at the WGLC and IETF LC stages. Before that, one could use different processes if they are likely to help building that consensus. Other people disagree. My personal opinion is that both interpretations above have some merit and should be discussed within the IETF community, which will sure face difficult situations like this one in the future again. Future WG chairs will benefit from more clarity on these issues. On a related note, there have been some comments about the RTCWeb chairs effectively attacking the IETF principles. I think those comments are unfair. We are talking about three former ADs in different areas all of whom have made significant contributions to the IETF community along many years. They understand the situation at hand and are trying to actively propose alternatives to resolve a difficult and important issue. Let's discuss which interpretation of the IETF process the community agrees more with (per the points above) instead of judging people for interpreting the rules differently in an area that is, arguably, not completely clear. With respect to the decision about the MTI video codec at the RTCWeb WG, the chairs will be proposing a way forward (taking into account all the input received) shortly. Cheers, Gonzalo On 28/11/2013 11:17 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Folks, > > as you may know, the RTCWeb WG is trying to select a > mandatory-to-implement video codec. So far, the WG has been unable to > reach consensus using traditional consensus calls. Now, the WG is > considering alternative options to make that decision. > > If you are interested in following that discussion on the RTCWeb list, > this would be a good place to start: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo >