Re: [Wpack] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-wpack-00-07: (with COMMENT)

[Jeffrey Yasskin <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 9:31 AM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-wpack-00-07: 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "* A low likelihood that the new format increases centralization or power
> imbalances on the web. See discussion of this in
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-escape-report/>"
>
> Unlike the other goals listed, it's hard to see how this is actionable. Will
> the WG make design decisions differently whether this is in the charter or not?
> If this working group were designing a system architecture or a protocol with
> an architecture that implied relationships prone to centralization would need
> to be created or strengthened for deployment purposes, perhaps this would be an
> appropriate goal. But the scope here is to specify a format that will be used
> in the context of the existing web with all of its existing centralization and
> power imbalances derived from the economic properties of the businesses
> operating within it. To me, stating this goal is sort of like saying we'll try
> not to throw kindling on a forest fire that is already propelled by gale force
> winds. We can say we'll do that, but what actually happens won't be determined
> by whether we do it or not.

One particular design decision that this goal affects is whether
publishers can't (the current proposal), can, or must specify a list
of distributors who can redistribute their signed packages. Picking
"must" in particular would encourage centralization in redistributors.
There are some upsides too, of course.

It's possible that the economic properties of the existing internet
are so large as to make irrelevant any choices this particular format
makes, but Adam and Barry seem to disagree. It's also possible that
this goal is so "motherhood and apple pie" that we don't need to say
it explicitly. I'll certainly keep paying attention to it regardless
of whether it's in the charter.

Jeffrey