On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:19 -0400, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 1. There is considerably more than a bikeshedding difference between > > a) normative dependence on a protocol, where the new exercise is merely a > syntactic re-coding" > > vs, for example > > b) "take the ideas from the existing work and use them as a basis for > writing a new protocol." I have serious doubts that we should accept a) on its face as the objective of this working group. I suggest that building the charter on b) will not negate actually implementing a) if it turns out—after productive discussion—that it makes sense to take such a direction. > 2. There is a significant constituency in the current topic that are using > language that sounds very much like option a) above. > > That is, I believe there is a meaningful split between an established > security > community view for this topic, versus the views of the json-oriented folk. > > What is perhaps missing is a clear and shared understanding of the exact uses > that are intended for the current work. Chicken, meet egg; requirements, meet charter. As I see it, the objective is to get a reasonably succinct—yet not too restrictive— charter adopted such that analysis and discussion can begin in earnest. > > For example "must be able to encode it in a URL" is a rather meaningful and > substantial constraint. Should we be diving into such details, making them critical path items to getting the charter in place? If so, I project a significant deviation from the proposed roadmap, time-wise. I would prefer to avoid creating extra burdens to completing the charter. Paul
_______________________________________________ woes mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
