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

Denis <> Tue, 01 March 2022 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80553A0D4E for <>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 09:00:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.944
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.944 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.186, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uYyBQFWn4rWZ for <>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 09:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 734DA3A0D50 for <>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 09:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPA id P5rPnATC7u3WEP5rQnyhGW; Tue, 01 Mar 2022 18:00:30 +0100
X-ME-Helo: []
X-ME-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 18:00:30 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------TzKoF1zufimJtVTaN1ecu8DA"
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 18:00:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Leif Johansson <>,
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Denis <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [GNAP] Concerns with the lack of progression of GNAP after 20 months of work
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: GNAP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 17:00:36 -0000


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.


> 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