Re: [GNAP] Concerns with the lack of progression of GNAP after 20 months of work

[Denis <[e-mail]>]

Leif,

My initial email from this morning raised numerous issues. Instead of 
replying to them using technical or factual arguments,
they have all been swept by using a single sentence by using the wording 
"repeating your misconceptions" which is an offence
(or taken as such). Using such wording is not constructive.

A message with the topic"embedding GNAP" got no reply from the WG, 
except one from a co-editor.
Do you interpret such response as a support from the WG ?

The key question is whether the model should only be *AS-centric *(as it 
currently is) or should also allow to be *RS-centric*.
The first model is adequate for an enterprise or a closed community 
while the later is adequate for the WWW.
This is an important issue.

Denis

> On 2022-03-01 14:30, Denis wrote:
>> Fabien,
>>
>> It is not useful to send flames.
>>
>
> Denis,
>
> As chair I am wary of unsubstantiated comments in WG discussions. This 
> is one such
> case: Fabien was not "sending flames" by any reasonable definition of 
> the term.
>
> As a chair I am also aqutely aware of the fact that while you have 
> written up your
> comments as an I-D (as we advised you to do) there have not been any 
> indication
> of substantive support from the WG of this work whatsoever.
>
> This means that you are in the rough here. I am not telling you to 
> stop making
> contributions but it is pretty clear that the WG does not agree with 
> your views
> and you can't force people to agree with you in the IETF.
>
> If you wish to continue talking about your draft I encourage that but 
> the txauth
> list is not the place for that. If you want to make contributions to 
> the current
> active drafts in txauth that do not assume adoption of your draft or 
> your point
> of view then pls continue.
>
>     Best R
>     Leif
>