Subject: Re: [hybi] HyBi BOF announcement

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:57:30 -0700

At 07:40 23-10-2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>And I wonder if there is a "v3d" ("version three digits") problem

Probably.

>lurking in the tools we use to process Internet-Drafts. I've never seen
>an I-D with a version greater than 99.

Neither have I.

At 03:49 12-09-2009, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>We are still working on the Charter Proposal and on the Agenda so 
>all the proposal and comments are welcome!

 From the proposal:

   "In particular, the working group will liaison with the W3C
    WebApps working group around the WebSockets protocol and the
    requirements to support the WebSocket API; if agreed by both
    parties, the HyBi working group may take on prime responsibility
    on the specification of the WebSockets protocol."

Are the two working group in agreement on who has prime 
responsibility?  I ask as there seems to be some misunderstanding 
about how work get done within the IETF.  BTW, prime responsibility 
doesn't mean that the two working groups should not work together.

    "Ability to achieve broad implementation"

Will the work be dropped if there isn't broad implementation?  If you 
are going for Proposed Standard, it may be worth considering whether 
the bar is not set too high.

    "Ability to address broader use cases than may be contemplated
     by the original authors"

I suggest changing that as this is (IETF) Working Group work:

   Ability to address broader use cases

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:35:40 +0200

SM wrote:
> responsibility? I ask as there seems to be some misunderstanding about 
> how work get done within the IETF. BTW, prime responsibility doesn't 
> mean that the two working groups should not work together.
good point.
let me take this chance to ask people from W3C WebApps and Whatwg wgs
if they agree on IETF taking on prime responsibility on the 
specification of the WebSocket protocol,
continuing of course to work together on the draft;
and if they agree, if it clear for them how work get done within the IETF.

thanks for the collaboration
Salvatore

---

From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:24:41 +0900

Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>, 2009-10-30 10:35 +0200:

>  if they agree on IETF taking on prime responsibility on the specification of 
>  the WebSocket protocol,

It seems like we're making genuine progress in getting the
protocol spec'ed within the IETF, and I think that's where
everybody would ideally like to see it happen.

  --Mike

P.S. The only recent problem I can think of that we have run into
around "prime responsibility" have been for the Origin spec, and
that was because the response was that there was no WG with IETF
that wanted to take on the work, and if that continues to be the
case, we'll need to look at taking that spec through the
publication process in the WebApps WG instead.

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:51:44 +0100

Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> ...
> ...

Not having a WG just means that you, if you want to publish on the 
standards track, will need to convince one of the Application Area 
Directors that this is a good idea. It doesn't *necessarily* mean it 
can't be done in the IETF.

BR, Julian