Re: [dispatch] Dispatch IETF 116 outcomes & minutes

Manu Sporny <> Mon, 27 March 2023 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FF6C15C2AB for <>; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ghpzOsxG2Gvv for <>; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CFA2C151B24 for <>; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f14so4130184iow.5 for <>; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; t=1679935321; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=WlAJPnlLCvTRdbObYrDxGAmIA2bUbFtUjBWmSACcYCU=; b=KfpoPErbYlBebYYU9iF/UpHE2eyyK7YDFabrjuBbJ1SaC8wHvnPXP84vXLoATf/NMn xj2aVGGNWFttzQ/rv75puuxLnGvJq2No3BQQApOuk8hAtEmuZ4jZ5BFh/cyF+uIZMADN sxfL9V1OxvzD3f1/XOkqEYmW5WRw2/XBXPPkjgkX1TDEKNw37zxegI1BOXdzSnP+ojjP uNjJTmmfqIxlZqisl3p+lR0QKaJAotQIaCQ5/HY6PaiupYtMVRGz8ph9f8FG259jVJb7 ekRAy/9tuiTOyZisvfLj9uK6u5kxhtnMPHlciXikque38tN1C/O1uQf6Ub/fzR/KEwqL kNAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; t=1679935321; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WlAJPnlLCvTRdbObYrDxGAmIA2bUbFtUjBWmSACcYCU=; b=m+KN+jc47LYxIP6bnrbQ6MO8p3XEFDZLx3tWofA/nTgVaJlyLvR8no6ypE7HMZmyYu rmdBGzMfTtKACzZXmYckWe2ngwvaUZktYrWLtnUbyDsVWSszDxPedR3zdBvvCappzvM7 bIB4NgifRV1hiX/zjJMt6sLl1IYSGSKV1oC3WkH7bflLPMmtCr5Gzxf+Ba9Y8Cl+6B03 Xf9HMfyLziWDhRTYV8TeCiyYT0PpXL1rEPOxNupAteYk5Yhv0sgIOoV72Etj6j2vtKva 4hgOBJETxSCr1qyFDPJ2M6wMQPQ8UE3XwhJtwf2szSx+oVbcJmqhuv0kL64pWtnaJ5X5 plcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXEN934cvezP+lz9LegrM+gDL0XNm2Fm3knquBI2Kq8C6jy3MT7 Zucj8uHO320jMWVy2j8giKiy9D0K+u260JQMK3pIGyZny8fc8dYta7EWvg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+g04QrNd0mh/15A8CvS1Qy1jeKT2CuIgtchyVJ4GZcLayRjQVlCSW9chJk2JdAFilcwoykWjKXSki2/CUH8Dg=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:944a:0:b0:3c4:dda2:da6e with SMTP id a68-20020a02944a000000b003c4dda2da6emr4533842jai.4.1679935321271; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Manu Sporny <>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 12:41:25 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: DISPATCH list <>
Cc: dispatch-chairs <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Dispatch IETF 116 outcomes & minutes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 16:42:06 -0000

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 1:35 AM Kirsty Paine <> wrote:
> Multiformats dispatch outcome: Dispatch outcome depends on the scope and purpose of the work (to be decided by authors). There are two options depending on this decision; Option 1: ISE as an informational draft with IANA registrations; Option 2: a small, no-BoF-required, WG spun up to address this problem specifically.

Thank you, Kirsty, Shuping, ADs, and attendees, for the time offered
and the consideration for the Multiformats work presented earlier
today in Dispatch. The concept of a quick, tightly focused WG to just
address the two work items proposed is compelling, especially given
that there was some feedback from those in the room that "the work is
poorly thought through". I believe those opinions might be based on
misunderstandings of the technology, but at the same time, proceeding
along the ISE path feels like it would be irresponsible if there are
design issues with the technology.

At this point, I believe an ISE path would only be responsible if we
were able to address the criticisms raised during the presentation,
either by determining that they were  misunderstandings (most likely),
or determining that there are design flaws with Multiformats
(unlikely, but not known without further discussion).

As next steps, I will do the following (and request that the Dispatch
ADs provide further guidance if they view any of the steps below as
ill conceived):

1. Send an email to each commenter with unaddressed concerns, with
dispatch CC'd, to more completely address concerns raised during the
dispatch presentation and confirm whether or not there was a
misunderstanding or a design flaw.

2. Request input from the Multiformats implementers on their
preference wrt. ISE or WG. One challenge would be finding a Chair for
the WG and coordinating activity through IETF (given that much of the
Multiformats community operates outside of IETF and W3C).

3. Start drafting a presumptive Multiformats mini-WG charter to
determine what a mini-WG could look like and what it might and might
not change. Is there an previous/example charter for a "mini-WG"
somewhere that I could use as a template? Understanding what a "small,
no-BOF-required, WG charter" timeline could look like will help me
convey that timeline to W3C and the Multiformats community.

Thank you again for the guidance through Dispatch, and the comments
from everyone, it is very much appreciated. :)

-- manu

Manu Sporny -
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)