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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 16 August 2017 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@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 A88EE1321C9; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:48:01 -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 MtwZ3RHQkdSS; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:48:00 -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 140061321C4; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v7GEltlp062865 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:47:56 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWqCct9J+SrC+_=Pyf-V0WsCyvStBmxZh3F-OV5QXwDzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:47:57 -0500
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3302369B-B713-476E-9A17-F1299E749A4D@nostrum.com>
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> <972ccc4e-da47-cb56-addc-ba7b02b94e67@nostrum.com> <CABkgnnWqCct9J+SrC+_=Pyf-V0WsCyvStBmxZh3F-OV5QXwDzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/u7rJkiyVgmXcYBhdyYWWudq5Mlg>
Subject: Re: [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 14:48:02 -0000

> On Aug 16, 2017, at 1:22 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> On 16 August 2017 at 15:41, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> (Hmm, I got this message twice...)
> 
> The usual exchange goes a: "I have code", b: "you implemented an I-D,
> that's your problem".
> 
> Some guidance about how to manage this situation would be appreciated.
> 
> I'm not looking for a prohibition on changes at any point in the
> process.  That's ludicrous, after all, people do understand what it
> means to implement an I-D.  But statements like "there is code" or
> "there is deployed code" are valid and useful input to a discussion
> and not just as proof that a given thing is possible.  That means
> potentially affecting the outcome of a decision.
> 
> In this particular case, the arguments presented weren't problematic,
> because the real arguments was actually "well, this change doesn't
> seem that bad to me".  But it's not the first time someone has opened
> with that argument and it annoyed me enough to comment.