Re: [Wpack] Call for adoption of draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases (redux)

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

Why do working groups have “use cases”? Why not just argue about mechanisms without any?
What does it mean to have “rough consensus” on the set of use cases?

 

I don’t think it is useful to expect consensus on use cases. The idea is to have a realistic set of situations that can be used to evaluate proposed mechanisms for whatever you’re trying to accomplish, with the goals of accomplishing

*	Predictable interoperability of conforming implementations
*	Possibility of implementation in the use cases with acceptable performance, security, privacy, simplicity

 

Different people will naturally have different priorities among use cases, and for desirable aspects.

Rather than consensus, I think it is better to cast the net widely.

 

In the case of WPACK and the web, there is already a broadly implemented and deployed mechanism for accomplishing the goal of packaging together resource representations, namely MIME multipart. I’d hoped the working group would consider doing the work of analyzing why the proposed mechanisms are (or are not) better than the existing standards for at least some of the use cases.

 

--

 <https://LarryMasinter.net> https://LarryMasinter.net  <https://interlisp.org> https://interlisp.org

 

From: Wpack <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 4:53 AM
To: Sean Turner <[e-mail]>
Cc: WPACK List <[e-mail]>; Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Wpack] Call for adoption of draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases (redux)

 

So, I'm quite late to this discussion (yay, vacation), but I think Sean's approach makes sense here.  We can move things in and out as consensus emerges.

 

regards,

 

Ted

 

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:56 PM Sean Turner <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

Mike,

I may be more laissez faire than most about WG adoption. I think of it as the document is a starting point. To date we haven’t had people falling on their swords, so I was leaning more towards the “get this version in, hack on it for -01” camp. If a lot of people are in the same camp as you we can always call this one off, get the I-D updated and start over.

spt

> On Aug 19, 2021, at 12:15, Mike Bishop <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:
> 
> This seems like the wrong order of things to me.  If the point is to adopt a document that describes the scenarios we actually have consensus on, why are the others not moved to the appendix in the version prior to the adoption call?
> 
> If the point is simply to have consensus on the fact that we have a scenario document, fine, but even if it's temporary I don't really like the idea of having a WG-adopted document that describes scenarios as in-scope that don't have consensus.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wpack <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Sean Turner
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:14 PM
> To: WPACK List <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
> Subject: [Wpack] Call for adoption of draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases (redux)
> 
> Hi! This message starts a WG call for adoption of draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases. This is the 2nd WG call for adoption for this I-D; the 1st WG call for adoption did not garner enough interest for the chairs to make a decision, but at IETF 111 the WG discussed adopting the I-D and trimming it down version to only agreed use cases (and sticking the others in an appendix). The I-D can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases/
> 
> This adoption call will run until 10 September 2021 at 2359 UTC.* Please indicate whether or not you would like to see this I-D adopted as a WG item.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sean and Dave
> 
> * Note that I am allowing a little extra time here because it is vacation time.
> _______________________________________________
> Wpack mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack

_______________________________________________
Wpack mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack