Re: [Wpack] Call for adoption of draft-yasskin-wpack-bundled-exchanges

My understanding of the charter discussion was that we expected to need
separate documents on privacy and security because signing-as-other-origins
has such a big effect on the web origin model. It could make sense to hold
up adoption of the signing document on those drafts being started.

However, bundling without signing has a more localized effect, which should
fit in the single document's privacy and security considerations section.
We should continue to improve that section in the same way we plan to
improve the rest of the draft.

A use cases document
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases-01> is ready for
adoption. It has, historically, not attracted much discussion from the
people who asked me to write it, but if having it adopted by the WG would
attract more interest, I'm all for it. I see Daniel also has some concrete
changes to propose, I think especially around promoting
https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases.html#name-subresource-bundling
to "essential". I think it's easier to tell whether the WG supports that
sort of change after we adopt the document.

Jeffrey

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:51 PM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:

> Mark,
>
> You make a good point about the need for the additional I-Ds, because the
> charter’s milestones actually call out 3 other I-Ds that address the
> signing mechanism as well as privacy and security. To be blunt, these other
> I-Ds have not yet been submitted. There was some security-related text in
> the bundle document that was removed and Martin Thomson had a content-based
> origin I-D. I am cautiously optimistic that getting the bundling I-D
> adopted will encourage the other I-Ds to surface because I strongly suspect
> that progress on the bundling I-D is likely to grind to a halt without
> those I-Ds. I do not think that the milestones, which are also a good year
> out of date at this point, should hold us back from adopting the bundling
> I-D. But, the entire set of I-Ds is required- it is the pact we made the
> IESG to get to done.
>
> spt
>
> > On Mar 16, 2021, at 00:59, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sean,
> >
> > I don't have access to minutes of the meeting yet, so this may have
> already been answered --
> >
> > The charter says that a use cases document, a privacy analysis document,
> and a security analysis document will be adopted at the same time as the
> bundling document. What's their status?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> >> On 16 Mar 2021, at 11:53 am, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Based on interest expressed at IETF 110, this email starts the call for
> adoption of draft-yasskin-wpack-bundled-exchanges. The I-D can be found
> here:
> >>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yasskin-wpack-bundled-exchanges/
> >>
> >> This adoption call will run until March 30, 2021 at 2359 UTC. Please
> indicate whether or not you would like to see this I-D adopted as a WG
> item. Note that this is an adoption call for the draft as a starting point
> for the bundle format.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> spt (for the chairs)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wpack mailing list
> >> Wpack@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wpack mailing list
> Wpack@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack
>