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

pá 11. 7. 2025 v 10:01 odesílatel Christoph Braun <braun3@fzi.de> napsal:

> 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.
>

FWIW, while this isn’t ideal in every situation, in the Social Web Working
Group we ran a quick round of simple up-votes to help narrow the scope.


>
>
> 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
>
>