Re: [Id-event] Push draft: conclusion of WGLC

[Dick Hardt <[e-mail]>]

Annabelle and Mike

I appreciate that you are disappointed with the results of the WG LC -- we
are as well.

Per RFC 2418 Sec 7.4, the Chairs requested WG Last Call input multiple
times over several months, and received precious few responses on the
mailing list. "At least rough consensus" is needed for WG documents to be
advanced to the IESG (RFC 2418, Sec. 7.5), and with two non-author voices
in favor, and one against, it is quite clear to the Chairs that such
consensus has not been demonstrated.

Note that the Chairs are not determining that the Push Delivery document
should not be worked on, only that it has not met the requirements for
moving forward in the IETF process.

Related is the lack of energy in the WG. The 2018-10-03 interim meeting was
cancelled due to lack of progress. Updates on the Poll and Subject
Identifier documents are still outstanding. Only 3 of the 5 authors of the
Push Delivery document responded to the WG LC.  Forward progress of the WG
is the responsibility of the Chairs (RFC 2418, Sec. 6.1). With the SET
document process now complete as RFC 8417, and the Push Delivery document
not achieving WG consensus, the choice to terminate the WG per RFC 2418,
Sec 4 is open for discussion by the WG.

wrt. deployments using the Push Delivery document, implementation of the
proposed protocol is an important factor in progressing the document, but
it is not sufficient in the absence of WG
consensus. Additionally, those deployments are specified in the OpenID
Foundation RISC Profile
https://openid.net/specs/openid-risc-profile-1_0-ID1.html

Dick and Yaron

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:25 PM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I support Annabelle's inquiry.  In my past IETF experiences, working group
> decisions have been made to not progress a draft, but such a decision has
> never been made by the chairs without working group discussion on the
> question.
>
>                                 -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Id-event <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Richard Backman,
> Annabelle
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 1:17 PM
> To: Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>; SecEvent <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Id-event] Push draft: conclusion of WGLC
>
> I'd like the chairs to explain the rationale behind this decision.
> Specifically, I would like to know:
>
> 1. How does this square with the persistent level of interest and
> engagement demonstrated during the presentations on this draft and its
> predecessor over the past several (4? 5?) IETF meetings?
> 2. What benefit is there to the IETF, the working group, or the community
> at-large in dropping this work, when there is a demonstrated need for the
> protocol, and multiple parties are already implementing it?
> 3. Why is this decision being made by the chairs, rather than the WG at
> large?
> 4. Is it standard practice to use engagement on a WGLC thread as a
> referendum on continuing the work within the WG?
> 5. What threshold of engagement needs to be met in order for the chairs to
> deem the document worthy of continued work within the WG?
>
> --
> Annabelle Richard Backman
> AWS Identity
>
>
> On 2/25/19, 12:25 PM, "Id-event on behalf of Yaron Sheffer" <
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     The latter: the working group is dropping HTTP Push as a topic.
>
>     Thanks,
>         Yaron
>
>     On 25/02/2019 21:08, Richard Backman, Annabelle wrote:
>     > Yaron,
>     >
>     > Forgive my unfamiliarity with IETF process, but could you explain
> what
>     > this decision by the chairs means? Does this mean the document will
> not
>     > be advanced along the standards track, but will remain as a WG
> draft? Or
>     > does this mean the secevent WG is effectively dropping HTTP push
>     > delivery as a topic that it is working on?
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     > Annabelle Richard Backman
>     >
>     > AWS Identity
>     >
>     > *From: *Id-event <[e-mail]> on behalf of Yaron
> Sheffer
>     > <[e-mail]>
>     > *Date: *Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:43 AM
>     > *To: *SecEvent <[e-mail]>
>     > *Subject: *[Id-event] Push draft: conclusion of WGLC
>     >
>     > Dear working group,
>     >
>     > We issued a 2-week second last call for
> draft-ietf-secevent-http-push-04
>     > on Jan. 24, and extended it by a further week, which expired on
> Friday.
>     > We had to issue a second last call because of lack of response to
> the
>     > first last call which took place in November/December.
>     >
>     > The results were better in the second try (2 non-authors in support,
> and
>     > 1 not clearly supporting publication) but not enough in our mind to
> push
>     > the document forward.
>     >
>     > This means that we will not be publishing the Push protocol as a
> working
>     > group document. The authors are welcome to publish it through other
>     > channels, as an AD-sposored RFC or through the ISE.
>     >
>     > We regret that we have reached this impasse, but clearly there is
> too
>     > little energy within the working group. We thank the authors for the
>     > significant effort that they put into this document, and thank the
>     > working group members who reviewed it.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     >
>     >      Dick and Yaron
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Id-event mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Id-event mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event
> _______________________________________________
> Id-event mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event
>