Input needed on the scope of use cases for the LWS Protocol v1.0

Dear LWS WG members,


I am hoping for your direct input on a few questions that will help 
define the LWS Protocol v1.0.
I am especially keen to hear from members who may not follow the GitHub 
issues closely or who may not attend the group meetings regularly:

- How do we define the boundaries of the core protocol? For instance, 
our charter [1] tasks us with a web protocol for client-server 
interactions. How should we approach e.g. use cases that require 
standardizing primarily local, offline-first behavior ([UC#24], 
[UC#101]), which are not explicitly mentioned in our deliverables?

- What is the role of the LWS protocol versus the applications built on 
top of it? For demanding requirements like non-repudiation ([UC#14]), 
end-to-end encryption ([UC#44]) or data verification ([UC#138]), should 
our focus be on ensuring the protocol supports it, or on standardizing 
the implementation of it?

- How should we interpret ambiguous requirements? Concepts such as 
"verifiable proof" ([REQ-F#141]) or "verifiable consent" (as in the 
current Use Cases draft document [2]) remain open to interpretation. A 
shared understanding of what these terms mean in the context of our 
charter would help us focus our design.


Background & Context:

These questions are prompted by proposed use cases with sophisticated 
requirements. While such use cases pose valid technical challenges as 
discussed in the GitHub issues, they represent a significant amount of 
work. As we progress further into our charter's timeline, focusing our 
collective effort becomes increasingly important. A discussion on these 
questions will provide much-needed clarity for our editors, prevent 
confusion for the wider community looking to implement our work, and 
ensure we are dedicating our resources to the core protocol features 
required for a v1.0 Recommendation.

With the current Use Cases draft document [2] reflecting all submitted 
use cases, this could lead to several productive outcomes such as:
- Marking certain use cases or requirements as explicitly not considered 
in scope for v1.0.
- Moving use cases or requirements not considered for the v1.0 protocol 
to a separate, informational document that could be offered to a 
Community Group for future incubation.


I'm looking forward to your responses to these questions.

Cheers
Christoph

[1] https://www.w3.org/2024/09/lws-wg-charter.html
[2] https://w3c.github.io/lws-ucs/spec/
[UC#14] https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues/14
[UC#24] https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues/24
[UC#44] https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues/44
[UC#101] https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues/101
[UC#138] https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues/138
[REQ-F#141] https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues/141

Received on Friday, 11 July 2025 08:00:56 UTC