Re: New Version Notification for draft-divilly-status-555-00.txt

[Colm Divilly <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark,
 see my responses inline below:

> On 27 Mar 2020, at 03:54, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Regarding next steps (chair "hat" on) -- I'd love to hear what other WG participants (and people who don't participate here regularly, of course) think about this. One of the things we look for is level of interest, as well as level of agreement.

Agreed, we feel this is a pain point for us, but then we'd expect it to be a pain point for others operating a similar model (where the party hosting the resource is not directly connected to the party authoring the resource), but we haven't seen any indication of that. My hunch is that others have more or less sidestepped this issue, by giving their tenants more control of the HTTP stack, effectively making them the operator of their HTTP resources. Thus the distinction between operator and author becomes moot.

> 
> Normally, Tommy and I would probably ask you to present at the next HTTP Working Group meeting in Madrid. It's not clear what's going to happen with that meeting, but I suspect that one way or another we'll be having a WG meeting soon, if only virtually, and we can probably have a discussion there. Between now and then, hopefully we'll see more mailing list discussion.
> 
> Is that workable for you?  I'm not sensing a need to get a decision quickly on your part, but if that's not the case, please say so.

No urgency, my gut feel is that for 99% of cases the author of the resource and operator of the server have a close relationship and this would provide zero value. I feel like our model is an edge case, we see a class of customer not interested in operating their own HTTP infrastructure, but still wanting to publish rich Web facing resources. It's only in that use case that this might become useful. Happy to present if there's any interest in the approach.

Regards,
Colm