IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Wpack] Problem statement and scope for BoF

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 07 August 2019 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27008120742 for <wpack@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V1MwTUZ3wlmT for <wpack@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DE65120689 for <wpack@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050096.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x77GwLiV013708; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:19:37 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=u3bek7r88I7CDbwHiTBt7glE++7UkiPE8uFGWbIOXo4=; b=YZW/E9ep9p8oVclIeWwAKsp69srTWliEjsGGpOwljp0jlZZ1eiqdD2oxkfUodsY1z5sY ayOAf8ZH5ZN2Thz0il5/hMjN757PX+5u4Po6Fz1VSHd+AO/Q2bWmu+dEfw0HHvcgbB8y o+9DAJ8U9HVRZnF/nYfAx42gkipEhJ7+Y5iqIZTirJkoxNWH4pBAekxb+dvT1oO/yFzw 06/5Kaps3qSxCsMc+5P8QisWKLjYoMUzj5LWpPb6ReMe5TYCApZCtjpbKBNZA8RUvVqt 0PJoXfGFY6Yolup7UWh350TasV4tydKisyYLMTqG1301MMDuMVElQ7P3wRa31XIuFqcX rw==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint8 (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [96.6.114.122] (may be forged)) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2u52p8jkn4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Aug 2019 18:19:37 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x77H2STL013554; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 13:19:36 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.32]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2u55kvd04q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Aug 2019 13:19:36 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 13:19:35 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 13:19:35 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
CC: "wpack@ietf.org" <wpack@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Wpack] Problem statement and scope for BoF
Thread-Index: AQHVS7Y5soTKl9Q6r0ibFluHsp3M6KbtM1uAgAL8kAD//8E4AA==
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 17:19:34 +0000
Message-ID: <3ED3A38E-CF3A-4468-B3D0-6082985D71B7@akamai.com>
References: <CANh-dXkRGGVAzRPC5k8p0u6b7NuidkOt81in70eF3Nwe_BAZQw@mail.gmail.com> <C1E62FBD-28A5-4B1B-8C99-06397919E68C@akamai.com> <CANh-dX=Q6G0ArLhHA6K-DsW87QkgJPNmP25vj05LNcLmZEysJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANh-dX=Q6G0ArLhHA6K-DsW87QkgJPNmP25vj05LNcLmZEysJA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1b.0.190715
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.33.97]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3ED3A38ECF3A4468B3D06082985D71B7akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-08-07_04:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=867 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908070166
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:5.22.84,1.0.8 definitions=2019-08-07_04:2019-08-07,2019-08-07 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=840 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1011 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1906280000 definitions=main-1908070166
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/qzItqu68yyLyra9HT2uItgcsoSY>
Subject: Re: [Wpack] Problem statement and scope for BoF
X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Packaging <wpack.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wpack>, <mailto:wpack-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wpack/>
List-Post: <mailto:wpack@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wpack-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack>, <mailto:wpack-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 17:19:54 -0000

>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.

So I only get one chance to make suggestions or comments? And if, after that one change I’m not willing to commit to supporting your project you will ignore me?

Surely, you don’t mean that, and I am just mis-reading what you wrote, and I look forward to seeing your correction.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email