Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)

> On 22 Dec 2014, at 6:05 am, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> Mark's advice is to pursue getting W3C liaisons to IETF to make a Liaison Statement, to which the IETF will reply, rather than trying to get IETF consensus on draft-ruby-url-problem.  
> 
> * What is the process of getting W3C to make such a statement? what would it say?
> * What next? What's our goal, how will we get there, and what is the path to success?
> 
> Could the liaison statement reference draft-ruby-url-problem for details, and basically ask "please work with to develop and execute a plan”? 

My advice is that if you want a formal statement on the IETF’s position, a Liaison Statement exchange is the most reasonable way to achieve that. If you do that, the result will *likely* be a statement to the effect of “Yes, people in the IETF community are aware of this work, and we will discuss it and potential impact upon our work as it becomes available."

Understand — the IETF has no mechanism for agreeing to do something other than going through the consensus process. We can’t commit to “work with [the W3C to] develop and execute a plan” without getting consensus, and doing that will likely only happen once people see the full technical details — adding a significant delay to what Sam’s trying to do. Coordinating work with an external organisation to do so only increases the difficulty (people here still have bruises from things like the joint XML DSIG work).

That said, given that what the W3C is doing has already been socialised within the IETF, and people there told that if they want to object / contribute / whatever, they should do so in the appropriate venue, I see no reason why Sam shouldn’t just proceed with the work, as I outlined previously (e.g., giving feedback to draft-kerwin-file-scheme, filing errata or collecting bugs against 3986, etc.).

Every time we’ve discussed this situation in recent memory, the plan has been to do roughly that — i.e., have the W3C perform its work, while the IETF patiently waits for the result; once it’s more or less done, we can take appropriate steps to incorporate / reference / clarify relationships with the outcome. If you want that formalised, a Liaison Statement is an effective way to do so.

This doesn’t mean that incorporating what the W3C does will be an easy task, nor will it be without risks. However, what I’ve heard from the relevant Area Directors is that this is the most viable way forward, and that’s what I’m trying to communicate to you.

Again — the Area Directors CC:ed (and of course those that are not) are more than welcome to disagree with me here, add their thoughts, etc.

Regards,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Sunday, 21 December 2014 20:46:51 UTC