Re: [hybi] Process! was: [whatwg] HttpOnly cookie for WebSocket?

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ian,
At 00:36 29-01-10, Ian Hickson wrote:
>As is the WHATWG.

I am sticking to the IETF angle as I don't have any documentation on 
how the WHATWG works.     Greg Wilkins raised two points in his last 
message.  The work done in here has to gain the consensus of this 
Working Group.  It then goes through an IETF-wide Last-Call where 
there is cross-area review.  It is the consensus at that final stage 
that matters.  I am not describing the finer points as it is better 
to read the relevant documents for a good explanation.

>But it doesn't mention the WHATWG, which is working on this spec.

Yes, it doesn't.  The Working Group would have to recharter if it 
wants to add that.

>By whom?

This charter was discussed on this mailing list by some of the people 
who are part of the Working Group and that was what they agreed to.

>One could equally say:
>
>People from the IETF are welcome to participate in the WHATWG process.

Yes, we could say that.  But the WHATWG process will not get the 
document published as a RFC.  To put it differently, you will still 
have to get the document through the IETF process.

>However, instead, I suggest we work together, just like the W3C and the
>WHATWG are cooperating on a dozen other specs.

I think that is an excellent suggestion.  It is unlikely that there 
can be a formal agreement between the different groups.  However, the 
individuals may be able to work something out.

>I sent feedback on Wed, 6 Jan 2010, to [e-mail]. I received no reply.

The IESG reads the feedback.  If I am not mistaken, the IESG 
generally does not send out individual replies for feedback they receive.

>Actually, I was asked to submit it by the IETF. I agreed to do so while
>simultaneously publishing it through the WHATWG. At no point was it
>suggested that the WHATWG should stop working on it.

The WHATWG can continue working on the specifications.  This Working 
Group will probably work on their own version of the specification 
too.  The outcome will be two different specifications for the same 
technology.  I don't think that is in the interest of the Internet community.

Regards,
-sm