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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 16, 2017, at 1:22 AM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 16 August 2017 at 15:41, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> 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.