Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal

["Paul C. Bryan" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:19 -0400, Dave CROCKER wrote:


> 1. There is considerably more than a bikeshedding difference between
> 
>     a) normative dependence on a protocol, where the new exercise is merely a 
> syntactic re-coding"
> 
> vs, for example
> 
>     b) "take the ideas from the existing work and use them as a basis for 
> writing a new protocol."


I have serious doubts that we should accept a) on its face as the
objective of this working group. I suggest that building the charter on
b) will not negate actually implementing a) if it turns out—after
productive discussion—that it makes sense to take such a direction.


> 2. There is a significant constituency in the current topic that are using 
> language that sounds very much like option a) above.
> 
> That is, I believe there is a meaningful split between an established security 
> community view for this topic, versus the views of the json-oriented folk.
> 
> What is perhaps missing is a clear and shared understanding of the exact uses 
> that are intended for the current work.


Chicken, meet egg; requirements, meet charter. As I see it, the
objective is to get a reasonably succinct—yet not too restrictive—
charter adopted such that analysis and discussion can begin in earnest.

> 
> For example "must be able to encode it in a URL" is a rather meaningful and 
> substantial constraint.


Should we be diving into such details, making them critical path items
to getting the charter in place? If so, I project a significant
deviation from the proposed roadmap, time-wise. I would prefer to avoid
creating extra burdens to completing the charter.

Paul