Re: Towards CR - Feedback / requirements from W3C

Hi Roy,

thanks a lot for the feedback.

When discussing with W3C and David, I (belately) realized that an "all
or nothing" approach (=no features at risk) limits our options and
increases our risk of failure.

Since I do not see an advantage of "all or nothing", I suggested to mark
those two features at risk.

I hope this works for you. If you see a substantial downside of marking
these features at risk, please educate me (either you or anyone else).


Regards,
matthias


On 11.09.2017 21:56, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear TPWG,
>>
>> thanks a lot for all then hard work you put into the CR proposal of the
>> TPE.
>>
>> As you know, a CR needs to satisfy certain criteria:
>> - List of features at risk (if any)
>> - Wide review
>> - Implementation reports (test suite as a plus)
>>
>> Despite the fact that most parts are unchanged, the feedback received is
>> that we should preferably repeat these steps and re-compile this package
>> for each subsequent CR release.
>>
>> As a consequence, my suggested next steps are:
>> 1 - We mark two features as at risk (changes to the CR draft):
>>  - Extensibility of the DNT header (unchanged from first CR)
>>  - Exception API (also to emphasize that we need more implementations)
> 
> Why?  We had that discussion on one of the calls and it was felt
> that we did not have any pieces that would be removed prior to REC.
> That is, either the document succeeds as a whole or it should stop
> progression to REC.  The "at risk" category is only for stuff
> that can be removed at REC without going back to the WG.
> 
> I could re-introduce the bits about DNT being extensible at risk,
> but that seems to be a waste of time.
> 
>> 2 - Bert asks again for a wide review (PING, security, Art29,
>> accessibility / internationalization, ...) within 2 weeks.
>> Points to make:
>>  - Exception API has been redesigned
>>  - Otherwise, the spec largely unchanged
>>  - It does not have any user interface (machine2machine)
>>
>> 3 - We call for implementations and implementation reports (also within
>> 2 weeks):
>>  - Mike suggested he should be able to update his implementation
>>  - For the signals, we can re-use existing reports.
>>  - Other implementations of the API?
>>
>> 4- If we receive no blocking feedback in these 2 weeks, we can then
>> submit the full CR package around end of September.
>>
>> If you agree, then no action is required ;-)
> 
> Well, someone has to send mail for (2) and update the wiki page for (3).
> 
> ....Roy
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 08:55:24 UTC