Subject: [avtext] Audio levels: Confirmation of decisions at IETF#80

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:51:06 +0200

(As WG co-chair)

We had a couple of consensus calls ongoing that ended today as follows:

<Start quote>

I would therefore like to make a working group consensus call on the additional material. Please answer yes or no to this question, although other comments are also welcome.

WG Call
--------

Does the WG consider the additional material added in Appendix A of draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-01 (and also referenced from draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-01) form the basis of an improvement to the WG task on audio levels, and should therefore be retained in the document?

Other changes that have taken place are the removal of the existing section 11 (Design choices) from draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level. Sometimes such material has been retained as an annex, and sometimes it is discarded. 

WG call
-------

Is the WG happy with this deletion?

<End quote>

There has been no input from the mailing list to these two calls so we asked the question in the face-to-face meeting. The results of that were:

For the first call, there was considered usefulness in Appendix A.1. "AudioLevelCalculator.java" and therefore this would be included in the document.

For appendix A.2. "AudioLevelRenderer.java" this was considered to be more implementation specific and was therefore considered less that useful. It would not therefore be included in the document.

As regards the second call, there was no issue with the deletion of the design choices at this time, so this information is confirmed as deleted.

If any members of the working group that have not expressed their views so far have issues with this, then please post to the mailing list by the end of this week. Otherwise we will consider these as confirmed WG decisions.

Regards

Keith

P.S. The editors are working on a revision of the document that closes the known open issues. If you have identified other open issues that need closing, then please post, because we are working towards getting a version with no open issues ready for working group last call.