Re: [vwrap] Moving startup documents into the working group

I give also my vote to that document, its not like it is set in stone anyways and it can give a kick start to VW who try to implement the protocol. If at a later stage we find it has not its place in the WG, then it can be put aside. 

From: Morgaine 
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:45 PM
To: vwrap@ietf.org 
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Moving startup documents into the working group

Perhaps someone could explain using a different form of words how client launching forms a natural part of a VW interop protocol?

I don't doubt at all that it's useful to launch a client application from a web page, but I gave the document a "No" simply because I don't see how it's in scope for us.

Should the SMTP standard include a document on how to launch a mail client?  Should the XMPP standard include a document on how to launch a Jabber client?  Should the SNMP standard include a document on how to launch snmpwalk?

I don't think it's actually harmful  to have an auxiliary document only marginally related to VWs within our document set, so I could probably be persuaded for the sake of unanimity.  But it does seem an oddball specification within our protocol context.

Perhaps the best defense for it is that it promotes the cause of VW interop by creating a Web standard in the area.  In that sense it's a useful document despite client launching having little direct relevance to our VWRAP client-server protocol.

Barry, I won't argue further against adding this document to our set so go right ahead on that, given the general support.  Usefulness probably trumps relevance and consistency in this case anyway. :-)

Morgaine.

==============================

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> wrote:

  yeah. peeps should imply that i +1 any draft i author.

  i'm sort of abstaining in an any official vote as i'm far from being a
  disinterested party. also... i wanted to give people a bit of time to
  discuss the drafts before weighing in too heavily. my response to
  morgaine's response was not to discuss the technical merits of the
  draft, but to provide additional context as to what the draft was
  supposed to address.

  -cheers
  -meadhbh
  --
  meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
  @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com

  On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Hurliman, John <john.hurliman@intel.com> wrote:
  > Ok. I was counting Meadhbh's follow-up e-mail addressing the launch document (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00154.html) as a +1, although I guess it wasn't explicitly stated.
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Barry Leiba [mailto:barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com]
  > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:24 PM
  > To: Hurliman, John
  > Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
  > Subject: Re: [vwrap] Moving startup documents into the working group
  >
  > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Hurliman, John <john.hurliman@intel.com> wrote:
  >> What happened to the launch document draft? Aside from the LLSD type
  >> system, it's the only document that we have a working implementation
  >> and deployment for.
  >
  > What happened is that we only got two votes on it, one for adopting it
  > (you) and one against (Morgaine).  That's not rough consensus, so we're not adopting it yet.  See Morgaine's message:
  >   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00152.html
  > ...for her comments about why she said no.
  >
  > Barry
  > _______________________________________________
  > vwrap mailing list
  > vwrap@ietf.org
  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
  >
  _______________________________________________
  vwrap mailing list
  vwrap@ietf.org
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
vwrap mailing list
vwrap@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap