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

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Annabelle,

You are correct that the two contradict, and I would like to take back 
the sentence about dropping the topic.

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 28/02/2019 0:01, Richard Backman, Annabelle wrote:
> Dick,
> 
> Could you clarify? Yaron said “the working group is dropping HTTP Push 
> as a topic” but you said “the Chairs are not determining that the Push 
> Delivery document should not be worked on.” These seem to contradict one 
> another.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Annabelle Richard Backman
> 
> AWS Identity
> 
> *From: *Id-event <[e-mail]> on behalf of Dick Hardt 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 12:29 PM
> *To: *Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>, SecEvent 
> <[e-mail]>, "Richard Backman, Annabelle" 
> <richanna=[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Id-event] Push draft: conclusion of WGLC
> 
> 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
> 
> https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif
> 
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:25 PM Mike Jones 
> <Michael.Jones=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[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]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Richard Backman,
>     Annabelle
>     Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 1:17 PM
>     To: Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; SecEvent <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]> on
>     behalf of [e-mail] <mailto:[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]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Yaron Sheffer
>          > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>          > *Date: *Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:43 AM
>          > *To: *SecEvent <[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Id-event mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event
>     _______________________________________________
>     Id-event mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event
>