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" <id-event-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> 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 <id-event-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Yaron Sheffer 
    > <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
    > *Date: *Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:43 AM
    > *To: *SecEvent <id-event@ietf.org>
    > *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
    Id-event@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event