[xiph-rtp] Chaining

[Phil Kerr]

Ralph Giles wrote:

>Not supporting chaining was in fact the original suggestion, made 
>initially by Jack about a year ago. If we'd done that we could have
>been all finished six months ago. :)
>  
>
Ralph,

I must protest in the strongest terms about your continuing line that 
the development work carried out by me went against Xiph.

You have previously made snide remarks about such issues as the CRC32 
field, insinuating the inclusion of this feature in submitted I-D's went 
"off the rails" and was unsanctioned by Xiph.  I have pointed you to the 
discussions carried out on this list where we reached a consensus, 
everything was done in public and even a "last-call" was made.

When we discussed the issue of chaining on this list on 20th October 
last year you were probably the only one who was against making best 
possible effort in trying to have chaining. 

With your comment above it gives the impression that there was a 
constant discussion against chaining by Jack.  I cannot find any 
objection posted by him on the Xiph-RTP list, in fact he posted here 
only a few times (but I'm sure he read everything).

Please Ralph, stop what is essentially back-biting.  You only started to 
raise objections in February *after* the last I-D was submitted to the 
IETF. 

Best regards

Phil