Re: [Wpack] Adam Roach's No Objection on charter-ietf-wpack-00-04: (with COMMENT)

["Alexey Melnikov" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,
Just to close the loop on your comments:

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020, at 4:42 AM, Adam Roach via Datatracker wrote:
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-wpack-00-04: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-wpack/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No objection to external review, but I think there are some issues we need to
> see addressed prior to approval.
> 
> 
> > * A low likelihood that the new format increases centralization or power
> > imbalances on the web.
> 
> I'm glad to see this in the charter. I would really like to see this bullet
> point expanded to more clearly cover the three different categories of
> specific concerns described in section 4.1 of draft-iab-escape-report (or,
> alternately, cite that document for further detail).

I think there were more comments that as stated this is not actionable, so I removed it.
Jeffrey also replied to Alissa on the same issue.

> > Note that consensus is required both for changes to the current protocol
> > mechanisms and retention of current mechanisms
> 
> I think this presumes a bit too much. Although the adoption of the initial
> candidate documents may be highly likely, this text clearly implies that
> their adoption is a fait accompli.

This was edited based on suggestion from Barry.

> > In particular, because
> > something is in the initial document set (consisting of
> > draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases, draft-yasskin-wpack-bundled-exchanges, and
> > draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses)
> 
> I also think we really need clearly-defined milestones here. Particularly,
> seeing draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases in the list of candidate documents,
> I believe we need to clearly indicate whether the WG intends to publish
> a use case document, especially in the context of the IESG statement at
> https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents/
> If the intention *is* to publish the document, indicating that such
> is the case (and why) will help during IESG review of such a document.

I addressed this by making clear in the list of milestones that the use cases documents will be a WG that is not intended to be published as an RFC.