Subject: [hybi] draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 11:05:54 -0700

Hello,

According to the HyBi working group charter, "The Web Socket 
protocol" is considered as the input document for the working 
group.  draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00 was submitted by I. 
Hickson, Google, Inc. on May 23, 2010.  In the Abstract Section, 
there is the following note:

   "NOTE!  THIS COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT IS OBSOLETE."

with a pointer to another specification.

There is the following Author's Note:

    This document is automatically generated from the same source
    document as the HTML specification.  [HTML]

    Please send feedback to either the [email-masked] list or the
    [email-masked] list.

The above is not what is regularly seen in a WG document.  I suggest 
that the WG document be updated to reflect current IETF practices.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 22:59:11 +0100

Feedback on an IETF working group internet draft goes to the IETF workgroup. Period. Feedback to whatwg that is not seen by the working group is not helpful to the draft or process. Remove mention of whatwg.

As for copies of documents being obsolete - checking a work-in-progress 'drafty draft' before emailing comments might be suggested, but really it would be necessary to push copies through the IETF drafts announcement process far more frequently.

Is the IETF just rubberstamping this work not under its control, or is this work actually done in this working group? It looks like the former.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM [[email-masked]]
Sent: 23 May 2010 19:05
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [hybi] draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00

Hello,

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:03:58 -0700

> Feedback on an IETF working group internet draft goes to the IETF workgroup. Period. Feedback to whatwg that is not seen by the working group is not helpful to the draft or process. Remove mention…

I usually try not to get involved in process discussions, but I
thought it might be helpful to say a bit about the benefits of
involving the whatwg in the process.

Generally, the whatwg mailing list has a higher ratio of technical
content to meta-discussion, which means it's more approachable for
developers who don't normally participate in standards.  For example,
I've encouraged various members of the WebKit community to raise their
concerns and questions about HTML5 in the whatwg instead of on
public-html because, historically, I've found that they get
friendlier, more productive responses, which encourages them to
participate further.

If we exclude the whatwg, we're likely to miss out on these points of
view.  Although folks like you and I can handle participating in this
forum, there's a group of folks who find this sort of forum
intimidating and unwelcoming.  Of course, another solution is to
encourage folks on this list to be friendlier and more welcoming.  One
way to start down that road is to avoid speaking in absolutes or the
imperative.

Adam

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 20:44:00 +0100

On 24 May 2010, at 19:03, Adam Barth wrote:
> content to meta-discussion,

Unfortunately, very little of that content is relevant to websockets - or even to whatwg's own documents. It's not technical discussion, it's not metadiscussion, it's just discussion.

Searching on topics in the whatwg list archive for discussion of websockets:
May 2010 to date - 21 messages out of 354
April 2010 - 25 messages out of 375
March 2010 - 52 out of 384.

compare with the hybi mailing list, where discussion on matters pertaining to websockets is pretty much everything.

I didn't bother going through the whatwg IRC archives at
http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/ - sample content:
[20:59] * gsnedders wonders what self-raising flour is in Swedish, and what grease-proof paper is  

> which means it's more approachable for
> developers who don't normally participate in standards.

which might be because it's not a standards-oriented mailing list, and because they're not there to discuss standards.

> For example,

HTML5 and public-html are not primarily concerned with websockets.

> view.

We're also missing the points of view of members of rec.pets.cats.

I think the websockets specification can manage without a treatise on CSS and colours, or on new video codecs. Whether it can manage with Hixie as editor is a more immediately pressing (and yes, process) question.

>  Although folks like you and I can handle participating in this

to encourage discussion not relevant to websockets or to the IETF?

You're attempting to deflect the conversation from serious process issues that have significant effect on the development of the protocol.

Lloyd Wood
[email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 14:40:40 -0700

Hi Adam,
>involving the whatwg in the process.

That has been discussed in October, 2009.  There were also arguments 
about the benefits of the IETF process.

>friendlier, more productive responses, which encourages them to

Anyone can participate in an IETF working group.  I haven't raised a 
formal objection as I still believe that it is better to work things out.

>way to start down that road is to avoid speaking in absolutes or the

You are the second person who brought up the question of excluding 
the people from the whatwg.  Is there any message from this mailing 
list that points to that?

draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements-00 was edited by G. Wilkins, 
Webtide.com and M. Stachowiak, Apple. Greg Wilkins resigned [1] as 
editor.  There was a thread about email granularity [2] and a 
discussion about consensus [3].  I am all for a friendlier and 
welcoming approach.  The discussion about the whatwg looks like a red 
herring.  The solution to look for is how to come to an understanding 
about how to get the work done while following the IETF 
process.  This is an IETF working group after all.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02020.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg01610.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02074.html

---

From: Sander Striker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:23:14 +0200

Hi,

> If we exclude the whatwg, we're likely to miss out on these points of

I think the exclusion is by choice if anything.  There is nothing stopping
the subscribers to whatwg@ to subscribe here.

> way to start down that road is to avoid speaking in absolutes or the

I have seen decline of actual progress and, as a result, frustration.  The
messages coming as a result, read as they are already significantly toned
down to me.  These messages are still outnumbered by the ones that
have technical arguments for one way over the other.

To make a point though, to be [even] more friendly and welcoming here
isn't going to make a difference.  It may actually just take longer to get to
a conclusion.

Cheers,

Sander

> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:49:15 +0200

On 23.05.2010 23:59, [email-masked] wrote:
> ...

By becoming the editor of an IETF Working Group draft, Ian has agreed to 
follow the Working Group rules. At least I suppose so.

In any case, members of the WG have complained about some editorial 
aspects of the -00 draft. Maybe Ian is waiting for direction from the 
chairs with respect to this?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:55:58 +0200

On 24.05.2010 20:03, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM,<[email-masked]>  wrote:
> ...

Observation from many Working Groups I am member of (W3C) or follow 
(IETF, W3C): the amount of process discussion usually goes up when 
there's friction with other communities, such as the WHATWG in this case.

W3C HTML-WG has the same problem, IETF HTTP-STATE, for instance, does 
not seem to have that problem.

For HyBi, the charter says:

   In particular, the working group has liaised with the W3C WebApps
   working group around the WebSockets protocol and the need to support
   the WebSocket API; as agreed by both parties, the HyBi working group
   will take on prime responsibility for the specification of the
   WebSockets protocol, taking into consideration all the requirements,
   needs and eventual concerns raised by the W3C WebApps working group.
   The draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol "The Web Socket protocol" is
   considered as the input document for the working group.

So this WG is supposed to be in control of the protocol. Directing 
people to send comments elsewhere simply is counter-productive, in 
particular as the participation rules essentially are the same (just 
subscribe to a mailing list).

Best regards, Julian