> On 21 Mar, 2016, at 20:04, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>
> The experience that led me to understand this problem was when a bunch of
> colleagues tried to set up a start-up (a few years ago now) to sell a range
> of "equitable quality" video codecs (ie constant quality variable bit-rate
> instead of
Dave Cridland writes:
> If this isn't standards track because there's no WG consensus for a single
> algorithm (and we'll argue over whether a queueing algorithm is a protocol or
> not some other time), then I think this WG document should reflect that
> consensus and hold back on the recommendat
On 3/24/2016 9:01 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Dave Cridland writes:
Well, I have to ask why, in this case, it's Experimental and not
Standards-Track?
Heh. Well, I guess the short answer is "because there wasn't WG
consensus to do that". Basically, the working group decided that all the
On 24 March 2016 at 13:01, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Dave Cridland writes:
>
> > What we meant to say was something along the lines of "You want to
> turn
> > this on; it'll do you good, so get on with it! You won't regret it!
> Now
> > go fix the next 100 million devices!". Th
On 24 March 2016 at 10:32, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Dave Cridland writes:
>
> > Actually I'd read that as more of a recommendation than merely safe. I
> > think by safe, the authors mean that no significant harm has been
> > found to occur.
>
> What we meant to say was something along the
On 24 Mar 2016 3:02 am, "grenville armitage" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 03/18/2016 21:35, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>>
>> IESG, authors,
>>
>> 1. Safe?
>>
>> My main concern is with applicability. In particular, the sentence in
section 7 on Deployment Status: "We believe it to be a safe default and
encourage peop
Dave Cridland writes:
> What we meant to say was something along the lines of "You want to turn
> this on; it'll do you good, so get on with it! You won't regret it! Now
> go fix the next 100 million devices!". The current formulation in the
> draft is an attempt to be slightly le
Dave Cridland writes:
> Actually I'd read that as more of a recommendation than merely safe. I
> think by safe, the authors mean that no significant harm has been
> found to occur.
What we meant to say was something along the lines of "You want to turn
this on; it'll do you good, so get on with
grenville armitage writes:
> What about:
>
> Section 1: "...and we believe it to be safe to turn on by default, ..." ->
> "...and we believe it to be significantly beneficial to turn on by default,
> ..."
> Section 7: "We believe it to be a safe default and ..." -> "We believe it to
> be
> a si
