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

[Jeffrey Yasskin <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:42 PM Adam Roach via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
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).
>

That sounds fine to me.

> 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.
>

I copied this text blindly from the QUIC charter, and I'd be happy with any
version that allows the WG to adopt and start working on some documents
before having consensus that what's in them is correct.

> 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 find that IESG statement convincing and would not push to publish the use
cases as an RFC. The IESG statement doesn't explicitly say whether WGs
should adopt this kind of support document at all, but I'd appreciate
getting it under WG control instead of having to guess about consensus
myself.

Thanks,
Jeffrey