Re: Discussing Client Sessions

HI Willy,

On 21/07/2012, at 3:23 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:17:53AM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> There's been a lot of discussion about client-initiated session identifiers
>> on list lately.
>> This is interesting, and perhaps important work, but it's squarely outside of
>> our *current* scope of work.
>> I'd encourage the folks who are interested in it to work on a proposal (or
>> three) in the form of Internet-Drafts; we can then spend some time discussing
>> them, before figuring out what to do about it. As it is, the on-list
>> discussion is getting somewhat circular.
> Mark,
> a draft is something appropriate when ideas are already in shape. Designing
> while writing a draft and without other participants' ideas and feedback is
> a very hard task (and not always efficient). Some discussions with the people
> on the list help figure out what ideas are wrong because the people with
> knowledge and experience are here.

That's great, and normally I'd be much more willing to let this conversation run its course. 

However, we had more than sixty messages in a handful of days. Right now, the Working Group is supposed to be concentrating on selecting a starting point for further work, as well as discussing the authentication proposals, and I don't want people to be distracted / arguing about this going into next week's meeting. 

I'm not saying this isn't a valuable -- and potentially promising -- conversation. I just want to see it pause. 

> Granted this can look like pollution compared to the scope of reviewing
> draft-20 and expressing support for 2.0 drafts, but if the participants
> silently work in their garage on a draft, they won't work on the current
> scope either and they'll come up with solutions which only reflect their
> own use.
> Maybe instead we should be strict on selecting the subjects of e-mails so
> that it's easier to skip the undesired threads and limit pollution ?

It's quite likely we'll be doing that in the future, yes. Right now, however, it's mostly a timing issue. 


Mark Nottingham

Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 00:15:26 UTC