[hrpc] Adopting draft-tenoever-hrpc-association

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Hi everyone,

According to the notes on 19 July, it looks like there was discussion
but not quite consensus on whether the working group should adopt
draft-tenoever-hrpc-association[1].

The next step is to take the discussion on adoption to the list. Please
weigh in with your views! I'm pasting relevant notes below.

-Mallory

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-association/

> See slide deck: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-hrpc-slides-association-final-00>
> Changes overview: -removed discussion on Internet as association and 
> consequences -cleaned up conclusion -edited typos
> 
> Methodology: -Collect a number of cases. Ethonographical approach: 
> this overview does not aim to cover all possible ways in which
> people can collec.vely organize or reach out but rather cover typical
> uses -Analyze cases with theoretical framework
> 
> Conclusions: -see slides
> 
> Authors hope the edits resolve now previous comments. Is the
> Research Group ok with proceeding with adoption?
> 
> Wendy Seltzer: I didntfind the framing compelling to me, re 
> connection between protocols and association. level of abstraction 
> didnt see quite right. I shared comments on the list. But cant see 
> what could make it compelling, so I would not spend time to work on 
> it.
> 
> Stephane B:The HRPC has been less productive in the past few months. 
> We should make sure to focus on review work.
> 
> Avri: We are already reviewing 2 drafts. Adding a 3rd is too much 
> work? We will take the question to the list, since in the room there 
> is no sure answer?
> 
> Niels: I think we already did everything we were asked. What else 
> could be done? To answer Wendy: this draft has very similar approach 
> to RFC8280,that is the methodology. How would another level of 
> abstraction be possible? The level of abstraction is already in the 
> methodology we adopted.
> 
> Avri: Sounds good. I will check also with the list, but I think we 
> can move along, there are no actual objections.
-- 
Mallory Knodel
Head of Digital :: article19.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780