[Webpush] Breaking Changes (was Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 16 August 2017 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0F31321A5; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Vx632WCw78Wp; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65CC2126C2F; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.roach.at (cpe-70-122-154-80.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.154.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v7G5fYV9066593 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:41:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-154-80.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.154.80] claimed to be Svantevit.roach.at
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, draft-ietf-webpush-vapid <draft-ietf-webpush-vapid@ietf.org>, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, webpush-chairs@ietf.org, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
References: <150284054989.12518.11340069078773708886.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABkgnnXwUpp4A=V6gNXoK+Q6LatCHFoB59+xVd0RxQ96Y5gfaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBP1Ej2Dd7rPTn6Sq3uVLA1gPHBSRSQR2Fam_mxJqcQgig@mail.gmail.com> <4125C183-E369-47EA-999A-0080BDF01B4A@nostrum.com> <716e5820-e57f-b7c9-b3b4-3cf387409575@nostrum.com> <CABkgnnWG8dDMAZe0MdAf0D7WE1jzA+yPJEAMsH9siL56cNbz1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <972ccc4e-da47-cb56-addc-ba7b02b94e67@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:41:33 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWG8dDMAZe0MdAf0D7WE1jzA+yPJEAMsH9siL56cNbz1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/-W2aWBU5MfzZrYJ4JyAa82Q-BxA>
Subject: [Webpush] Breaking Changes (was Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of potential IETF work on a web push protocol <webpush.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webpush>, <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/webpush/>
List-Post: <mailto:webpush@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush>, <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:41:54 -0000

On 8/16/17 12:09 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> p.s., It's been a while since I've been on the receiving end of the
> old "your code doesn't matter, you took a risk implementing an I-D"
> argument.  As an argument it kinda stinks.  I'm embarrassed to confess
> that I've used it in the past, despite reminding myself not to.  I'd
> be interested in learning whether the IESG has an opinion on the
> subject.  A statement of policy might be valuable.


Given that the alternative is effectively forbidding breaking changes 
after WG adoption -- which is clearly untenable -- I'm not sure what 
kind of policy you're looking for here. Can you clarify?

/a