Re: [Wpack] Problem statement and scope for BoF

[Jeffrey Yasskin <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Mike. I agree that a clear statement after the BoF that ~"the IETF
does not want to take up this project" would be one of the two useful
outcomes, even though it's not the outcome I prefer.

If the problem statement, scope, and charter do not "maximize the chance of
chartering a working group", there's no way to get that clear statement,
since one could tweak them to call the decision into question.

I don't have a lot of experience with BoFs at the IETF, but it seems like
the right place to add information that will help inform the IETF would be
in parallel I-Ds and during the presentations at the BoF. Would it make
sense to invite Rich or another skeptic to give one of those presentations?
I'd be happy to review it for factual accuracy like I did with Mozilla's
position paper. You can talk to MT about how that went. This does
contradict the advice in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5434#section-4,
which recommends avoiding "presentations that do not directly support the
goal" where "the goal is to form a WG". But think I'd rather have the room
evaluate an organized presentation about why the IETF shouldn't do this
than disorganized questions at the microphone.

Am I still missing the point?

Thanks,
Jeffrey

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:35 PM Mike Bishop <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I’ll review and comment on the actual problem statement later; right now,
> I’m replying solely to this e-mail.
>
>
>
> Thank you for clearly stating your standard for taking changes; I would
> submit that it’s the wrong standard.  The point of a BoF is not the
> formation of a working group.  It’s to determine whether the IETF as a
> whole desires to take up a certain project – whether the project is clearly
> defined and there are enough people interested in doing the work.  If a
> change to the problem statement and scope makes it easier for the IETF to
> make that assessment, it’s beneficial, even if the eventual assessment is
> that the IETF doesn’t want to do it.
>
>
>
> Not to say that we do or don’t – but I believe your role is to help the
> IESG make an informed decision, not merely to shepherd them to a particular
> predetermined decision.
>
>
>
> *From:* Wpack <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of * Jeffrey Yasskin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 1:04 PM
> *To:* Salz, Rich <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Wpack] Problem statement and scope for BoF
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 4:28 PM Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Commenting only on the "problem" part of your post; I reserve the right to
> comment on other parts later :)
>
> I am surprised that search carousel and AMP isn't mentioned, as frankly it
> is the use-case with the most economic incentive/impact. Honesty compels us
> to explicitly mention it, plainly, and first.
>
>
>
> The AMP and Search Carousel use case is mentioned as "Even users with
> highly-available internet connections want to be able to read and interact
> with web pages as quickly as possible after clicking a link." The use case
> is broader than just one framework or piece of search result UI, so it
> seemed wrong to call out particular brands.
>
>
>
> Further, my impression of IETF charters is that they discuss and
> prioritize the goals of the IETF working group, not just the goals of the
> company employing the individuals who are proposing the WG. My impression
> is that the IETF sets a lower priority on fixing the AMP URL problem than
> improving access to the global internet, so I wrote the higher priority use
> case first.
>
>
>
> It's true that a lot of Google's investment in the problem is driven by
> trying to fix things around AMP, but I think it's fair to solve a problem
> for less-wealthy users by using funding from a wealthier client who can
> also benefit from the same solution.
>
>
>
> I'm happy to take changes here, but I need those changes to be designed to
> maximize the chance of chartering a working group. The ideal change comes
> with a statement along the lines of "I don't support chartering a WG with
> the current problem/scope/charter, but I would support it after this
> change." Rich, judging from your ESCAPE submission, you don't want the IETF
> to do this work at all, so I worry that if I take your suggestions, it'll
> make the IETF less likely to create the WG. If I've misread your post, and
> you actually think the IETF is enthusiastic to prioritize AMP first, let me
> know.
>
>
>
> >    * Other users run out of paid-for data in their mobile plan part-way
>     through a month, or aggressively disable mobile data to make sure it's
>     not wasted.
>
> We have seen no evidence that this is done because of surfing, as opposed
> to tracking or other app activity.
>
>
>
> I agree. The inference I'm going for here is that, if users have turned
> off or run out of their data, even because of native-app misbehavior, they
> can't then browse to and install a web app. I'm having trouble coming up
> with wording that would make that clearer without being too wordy. Any
> ideas?
>
>
>
> Jeffrey
>