Re: ACTION-207: Poll regarding the fact that RTSP will be discussed in a separate note

Oh, if putting RTSP specs in an appendix doesn't stop the spec from
progressing, that would be a clear winner IMHO.
Silvia.

2010/12/24 Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>:
> Dear Dave,
>
>> The poll outlines 3 possibilities, and then has a yes/no possibility
>> to answer, and there is no question (no question mark), so I find
>> myself unable to answer!
>
> Apologies, I always found difficult to phrase correctly a yes/no question
> while giving the appropriate context.
> As Silvia said, the question was:
>
> "Should the processing of Media Fragment URI over the RTSP protocol be
> described in a separate document with the status of a WG Note?"
>
> and you answered "yes" with the comment "I don't mind, it should be
> published" ... which I understand, you don't mind where it is published.
>
> There is a consensus that this document should be published and be publicly
> available. The question is therefore how and where? The poll is meant to
> decide if the group wants this piece *in* the reck track spec OR *outside*
> the spec (i.e. in the WG Note).
>
> The cost for putting it in the rec track spec is to issue another LC WD. So
> far, Davy and Jack consider this cost as too high. Silvia has a clear
> preference for having this in the spec, but "will not stand in the group's
> way though". Philip introduced a third way: having this part in the spec,
> but as an informal appendix.
>
> I have re-opened the poll so that more people can answer: Erik, Raphael,
> Yves, Thomas, Michael, Conrad, at least ...
> Best wishes.
>
>  Raphaël
>
> --
> Raphaël Troncy
> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
> 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
>
>

Received on Friday, 24 December 2010 12:12:10 UTC