Re: [Wpack] wpack: status

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Thanks Sean. I will go ahead and push the buttons to close the working group. The mailing list will stay open. If more participation can be gathered and the working group reenergized, the ADs can re-evaluate.

Thanks to the chairs for their wise shepherding, and all for your participation.
Francesca

From: Sean Turner <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 24 January 2023 at 15:43
To: WPACK List <[e-mail]>
Cc: Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: wpack: status
Hi! After consultation with the WG, the I-D authors, and our responsible AD (cc’ed), the chairs are, unfortunately, at the point where we are requesting that the WPACK WG be closed. However, we would like to keep the mailing list open.

spt

> On Nov 28, 2022, at 14:40, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi! Dave and I have been discussing wpack’s status. Of the four deliverables we have in our charter, there is only one being worked. More troubling is the lack of discussion on the mailing list. We are wondering whether to recommend that the group be closed, and to recommend a way forward for draft-ietf-wpack-bundled-responses.
>
> We are inclined to recommend closure for lack of participation, but maybe this message will motivate more people to begin contributing.
>
> For draft-ietf-wpack-bundled-responses, the authors have indicated that they are still motivated to publish the I-D, and are willing to make changes based on IETF input. But, they need input. The issues we see are that, without the security and privacy documents, the solution is not likely to make it through the IESG.
>
> If the WG closes, there would also not be the IETF change control expected of a Standards Track document, though it would still have value documenting an Internet exchange format. In that event, it would be better suited to go through the Independent Submissions Editor with labeling that reflects its provenance as a Google format.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Dave and Sean