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

> On 22 Dec 2014, at 8:10 am, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.

The plan was to publish the URL LS (in the W3C, perhaps) and then try to adjust 3986/7 as necessary afterwards. Both of the paths you outline above seem to be new ones.

When you say “a specification that obsoletes 3986/7”, what specification do you envision doing so? I.e., IETF, W3C, WHATWG? You might say these distinctions aren’t important to you, but they are to some.

You can certainly propose updates to 3986/7; that’s done by submitting an internet-draft as outlined earlier (either listing the proposed changes, or making them wholesale).


> 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.

That’s where I think we are. I wouldn’t characterise it as “no interest in collaboration,” but rather “a healthy amount of concern about the issues involved in cross-organisational collaboration, along with respect for the scars gained in trying to revise these specifications in the past.” If you propose concrete technical changes to the documents, they will be taken seriously. What we can’t do, however, is guarantee an outcome.

As Julian says, the work needs to be started by describing the technical problem(s) in detail. draft-ruby-url-problem in its current form is NOT that document. What I think we need is some combination of an issues list and a set of proposed changes. 

If you were serious about “upping the ante,” and you can write it down in reasonable time, we can request a BoF to discuss the work in Dallas; if it takes longer, Prague or Yokohama.


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

The URL LS has been advertised to the relevant IETF crowds, and we’ll continue to remind them of the work.

What does technical feedback on work being started at the IETF mean? To get technical feedback, I think you need to propose concrete changes to 3986/7, or at least point out the specific deficiencies.


>> 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.

The nut here seems to be what “some movement at the IETF” means. You seem to want to get IETF Consensus on a Plan, and the feedback I’ve been giving you is that a) that’s hard, and b) it’s probably not worth your time.

What we can do is:

1) If you like, get a Liaison Statement exchange that a) assures that proposals to change RFC3986 will be taken seriously, and b) show that there’s been some level of inter-organisational coordination here

2) Make a BoF request to discuss a more meaty document, if/when it appears.



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

Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 09:17:01 UTC