Re: [GNAP] Human rights perspective on W3C and IETF protocol interaction

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 06 January 2022 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067E43A0C9F for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 06:02:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.811
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cFAywhrsSojX for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 06:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from beige.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (beige.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F1E3A0C69 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 06:02:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA6120836; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 14:02:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gcp-us-central1-a-smtpout1.hostinger.io (unknown [127.0.0.6]) (Authenticated sender: hostingeremail) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id ECC62215A5; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 14:02:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from gcp-us-central1-a-smtpout1.hostinger.io (gcp-us-central1-a-smtpout1.hostinger.io [35.184.15.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by 100.124.6.122 (trex/6.4.3); Thu, 06 Jan 2022 14:02:37 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: hostingeremail
X-White-Trouble: 1382256f27a90771_1641477757084_1207122359
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1641477757084:3571082768
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1641477757083
Received: from [192.168.0.106] (c-73-170-122-71.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.170.122.71]) (Authenticated sender: dhc@dcrocker.net) by smtp.hostinger.com (smtp.hostinger.com) with ESMTPSA id 4JV7Mj3RVlz2YsRn; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 14:02:25 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=hostingermail-a; t=1641477752; bh=7OF2DG5n7RmiZ/Ey/3xMDlakAcqG2tdtse0QGWYCIVY=; h=Date:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=KJO9tXYsr9rdjjP+rjIauy6Ib6eutuZpACiTuLtounFv9qVCgz9FJZr6x93xOq1e/ KWjjrMJ/TMA0aEhuwlGp/OFi16MpGbTQs8MReYvnR6ww/8LBIOzspJNjqk3wCnZ0PG 8QDCHl0WskrlNVVFNe61il7N/0PPk0hmt7tgl/Ff3x2RLnBQjMcGhYnzEXjZdWlnOC orFXiZOeWWWkOOA7o2+bV0lG0B9RI9cOLw6TvUQfIjOEe6RCeGZNqiRLuri3DLQzd5 2QsFnUmF6qQw0cE8kbDDjJOaWiVoQX40bBSNQUhNFGCp4rRr/Fp2Xj+eBB+F0Bvhp5 8NfEY4OLW6ZJw==
Message-ID: <b9ce016b-af2e-847f-c631-a72a67139ad6@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 06:02:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Language: en-US
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Cc: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>, Alan Karp <alanhkarp@gmail.com>, GNAP Mailing List <txauth@ietf.org>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
References: <CANYRo8i=H3p23boH4OQ6sCXds8ADqaizwDHebE6-xMP2mZ5QEg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA1s49VWs_Qe9qryJOwWG4oHTS6Wa-6p6jAVSDT6Vqn4cwdUwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANYRo8jUaP=9eX3HJWhFOmMCeaU7gkTQ9FdLg3=E61AUFQv8qQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANpA1Z2WBT69AJ6ynsYCHuOAAoB7F3fn+ebtV3fjBdeYTT-D+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANYRo8gnx0nFje=GfqUVUESkKpeJB4Ln3Pa2QYt_iFMkrPBsLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA1s49UdeVBgc+rzOEJ+LcAP8g4gXX9XnZH2m+4=oOcFy3AvCg@mail.gmail.com> <CANYRo8iDA-EGK589VdcNU8PMK2BQZwT19Bxsav2HSGwhyBL=4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAN8C-_+eSZCohY7QDC5La90=14=sjpo5pELOUqUdb7PhRzhXxw@mail.gmail.com> <A4FA7445-31A5-4B7A-BE30-EB47168F8ED5@mit.edu> <CAN8C-_+rMsFDCnbEn7KJhWA_ovFbJbpiviYR-wPr2MK756Z-Lw@mail.gmail.com> <3C82D2BD-EACC-41E0-BE92-9357199412BB@mit.edu>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
In-Reply-To: <3C82D2BD-EACC-41E0-BE92-9357199412BB@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/-U6XtPyxHSmA4DB2J5dEi0P_2fo>
Subject: Re: [GNAP] Human rights perspective on W3C and IETF protocol interaction
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: GNAP <txauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/txauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:txauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 14:02:46 -0000

On 1/6/2022 5:46 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
> ou are linking to the correct draft but you’re still missing an 
> important distinction: there’s a huge difference between an individual 
> I-D, which is what the old signatures draft was, and an active working 
> group document, which is what the GNAP resource servers document is. The 
> latter is on a path to become an RFC, the former is not. Both are 
> “labeled” as I-D, which might be the source of the confusion — and 
> that’s why I say that the label of “internet draft” doesn’t actually 
> mean anything on its own. It’s the state of the document within the 
> process of the SDO that matters. This is why the current HTTP Signatures 
> draft within the HTTP working group is considered :much: more normative 
> than any of the old individual drafts, including the series of Cavage drafts


The above clarifications have the right spirit, but I'll suggest some 
simplifications that might make things even easier and maybe clearer:

1. Any and all IETF-related (draft-) Internet Drafts have no formal 
publication status.  None.  They are working documents and the nature of 
venue of the work involving them varies from none to a lot.

2. Outside of the formalities, any individual group -- including an IETF 
working group -- can choose to add their own formal status, such as 
'working group document', but that's an internal status for group 
management purposes.

3. When an I-D has some relationship to a published document, the I-D is 
likely to represent more recent views, obviously.  One can choose to 
favor it, therefore, but that's different from its having community 
reviewed and approved status.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net