Subject: [hybi] Process notes on HYBI, Web Protocol API and WHATWG

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:17:22 -0800

Hi guys,

Ian Hickson raised an issue during last call of the HYBI charter that
I failed to respond to.  This was a private message to the IESG, but
Ian has already referred to the message, so I will respond belatedly
but publicly. The failure to respond is mine, so I apologize for that;
I didn't see any action to be taken to the charter and then it slipped
my mind to actually respond.

Ian's last call feedback suggested that the WHATWG is still working on the
Web Sockets protocol as well as on the API.   This was a surprise as I had
seen much discussion about the IETF proposal to work on the Web
Sockets protocol, including participation from WHATWG members and W3C
members, and believed we had addressed such questions long before the
charter last call.   Clearly the Web Socket  API would need to continue in
development elsewhere (I had primarily been thinking of the W3C), and
thus the IETF WG needs to coordinate with that effort and attempt to insure
a good match between the protocol and the API.   However, my
understanding was that the intent was to have the IETF continue
development of the protocol piece.

Ian's message seemed to suggest that he would rather that the protocol
piece be a joint effort between IETF and WHATWG.  In the past, such
joint efforts have been extremely rare and always regretted as far as I
know: satisfying the process requirements of two organizations may
be even worse than adding up the time it would take to do the work
separately in either. Last Calls requesting feedback. Speaking as AD I
don't think this is likely to be the best path.  Instead, the IETF has
always
offered open participation.

The IETF appears not to have a liaison relationship with the WHATWG.
Should anybody desire that, the IAB is responsible for setting up and
maintaining liaison relationships.

Lisa