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

On 12/21/2014 03:46 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> 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.

Building a specification that obsoletes RFC 3986 as well as RFC 3987 is
lower risk and less work than updating RFC 3986 and/or RFC 3987 and then
updating the URL Living standard based on this work; all in the hopes 
that parts of the results might be picked up at some later point by the 
IETF.

If there is no interest in collaboration, then I'll simply continue on
the WHATWG plan of record, possibly intercepting with the W3C should the 
proposed workmode be adopted.

What I'm looking for is technical feedback on the URL Living Standard 
and/or work being started at the IETF

> 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.

I'll simply make the observation unless there is some movement at the 
IETF that the risks will only increase over time.

This is NOT an ultimatum.  There isn't a a point at time where a 
go/no-go decision needs to be made.  But given the lack of demonstrable 
progress in the last 90 or so days, I would suggest that there be a 
cause for concern.

> 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/

- Sam Ruby

Received on Sunday, 21 December 2014 21:11:12 UTC