Re: [hybi] updated Charter proposal (Criteria) (was: WebSocket)

[Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto at ericsson.com>]

it seems to me that there are opportunity reasons (e.g. do a specific 
piece of work; the efforts people have spent during the last years on WS)
but also some consensus on focus the WG long term solution on WebSocket 
protocol

however what is not clear is *"what criteria that proposed changes to WS 
needs to meet"* (as suggested by Mark)

so far Ian has followed a fairly strict set of criteria for changes to 
WS (from Ian mail: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg00695.html);
mainly
- keep the protocol simple
- specifically designed for JS clients
- possibility to update it regularly without bootstrapping through 
intermediaries

(Ian, please correct me if I have misinterpreted you)

However there are people in the group that do think the criteria for 
changes should be less strict and also take in consideration 
intermediaries,
infrastructure providers and/or even servers and also clients different 
from JS clients.

So I'd like have a discussion in the mailing list about the criteria 
that proposed changes to WS need to meet

cheers
/Sal







Mark Nottingham wrote:
> My .02 (repeating some things that have been said by others) --
>
> A WG that has a definite charter to do a specific piece of work has a 
> much greater chance of success than one that is tasked with picking a 
> winner; even if the WG fails as a whole or needs to be rechartered 
> later because it isn't working, it's much more productive to be 
> working on one identified thing.
>
> I think a charter for a WG along these lines needs to very carefully 
> spell out what criteria that proposed changes to WS needs to meet; it 
> will be very easy for it to become unproductive otherwise.
>
> I don't think that the characterisation that Ian has been reluctant to 
> take feedback is merited; I've seen him incorporate feedback from 
> several communities. Of course, he's operating with a fairly strict 
> set of criteria for changes to WS; YMMV.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> On 26/10/2009, at 9:10 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Salvatore Loreto wrote:
> >
> > > In particular, the working group will liaison with the WebApps working
> > > group of the W3C around the Websockets protocol; if agreed by both 
> > > parties,
> > > the HyBi working group may take over the development of the Websockets
> > > protocol.
> >
> > Could we detune this from support of the specific Websocket protocol?
> > How about:
> >
> >  In particular, the working group will liaison with the WebApps working
> >  group of the W3C around a protocol to support the Websockets API; if 
> > agreed
> >  by both parties,  the HyBi working group may take on prime 
> > responsibility
> >  for the specification of the protocol.
> >
> >
> >
> > regards
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hybi mailing list
> > hybi at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi