Re: [httpapi] Martin Duke's Block on charter-ietf-httpapi-00-00: (with BLOCK)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 10 September 2020 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: httpapi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: httpapi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560EF3A0BFA; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y-KaYgY9twUa; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f53.google.com (mail-io1-f53.google.com [209.85.166.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39F2D3A097C; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f53.google.com with SMTP id r9so8236663ioa.2; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WjkWZBk+PdhokQkVbHgqKEBqD/McEyzyYQbskm33uuA=; b=uRe0444XjUV8MUIHN3rRYhoHCvo98p7QXAKzvwETFLspLzonmqeGwQhkbAA4RGFmLz wDUUCpW3958eTTnbA/OfMM7IAZUpTYyRB805gKN58F1J/Lm2cOu5KKf3zOsBKqJhpu8v wcClUo737YDvNyu3e5EoW0kEuVQrzLpxA++BtZsWdSqzPwHzRzu7l18VdZsuNzMJfVqa SuMJ+sn6JO1wedWZA18esfG22/cNelCK3rAkEK9U3U1HHwrgOygoQGmJ1alKLMdcTjCL df3HZDF02P17g171CbcMBMyOO1cHVl5bSeWwyB1jBzL3iVoiK7Yg8fLnEgrBlvLQBCZB s8OA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533NBFkTqg1MRCwQCbCzBqRAiVVpb8Rb+chnDudyb5MRjUSKQgBv /TtIxbg/RZ0zjfRHvLfbnYPjypGmwgmd257Jvtg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJysNiFteLmNwCjSz1ne77W/DhJ2LuT+9kXucMCw7SfopHqJ3jsxcvv+KZqHdNGSwgO8D4rMd4ugFS93ccOgb24=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e718:: with SMTP id b24mr8965630ioh.9.1599762538374; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159958075822.806.6403222206022210649@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJ+avKC05HEkRXiw9qwgzMvGtwqaj=mreCc+k3WkNem99Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxT-JH5VqAnn+J+JRYMLEAGsM4-XCE+Nd8kiH_NAT42W_g@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLmh7RUFAwJzWmZwODm2UxzCgKpcMSy2QYfHYtOF5K5Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxQPbMgeY=LKSpRr-016A3b4UFx-Pq3s56ggkM=NNQNUqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQPbMgeY=LKSpRr-016A3b4UFx-Pq3s56ggkM=NNQNUqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:28:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJgD93pAtAJRadFDKW2n9zimACufAhjpze78zum6Kc=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, httpapi@ietf.org, httpapi-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/httpapi/20OEwb02I3HABLm1SE3o7IevzAY>
Subject: Re: [httpapi] Martin Duke's Block on charter-ietf-httpapi-00-00: (with BLOCK)
X-BeenThere: httpapi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Building Blocks for HTTP APIs <httpapi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/httpapi>, <mailto:httpapi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/httpapi/>
List-Post: <mailto:httpapi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:httpapi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpapi>, <mailto:httpapi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:29:01 -0000

>> What do the two of you think about a provision to review the charter
>> and WG progress annually, at each year's 3rd IETF meeting?
>
> If that's in there, I would remove my BLOCK.

Thanks, Martin.

> However, I wonder why we wouldn't just hold a WG forming BOF to figure out what
> they're going to do, rather than form the WG and then figure out the initial objectives.
> The latter has the same first meeting while also having less organizational overhead.

Part of the point of this working group is to involve a community that
we know is there and has work to do, but that wouldn't normally go to
an IETF BoF.  It's not that there isn't work to do, nor that there
aren't people prepared to do it, but that the process of getting work
started in the IETF doesn't rope in that community.  We could try
pushing them into that process for a BoF for this working group... or
we can do a slight adaptation for them.  I think the latter is the
better approach, and I think we'll need to look, moving into the
future, at how to continue adapting in order to include different
communities better.

And I do think a "let's check and make sure this is working" thing is
a good idea, so thanks, Martin and Alissa, for pushing on that.

Barry