Mark, many thanks for your comments; I've had very similar thoughts and
concerns myself.
At 12:54 10/8/00 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>Recently, there's been a lot of discussion in various places about the
>status of WREC, particularly since there are a few other proposals for new
>working groups (currently at the BoF request stage) that need to define a
>relationship, or lack thereof, to WREC before they can move forward.
I've received requests for clarification on WREC's plans by some of the
folks involved in those other groups. I'm very aware that they would like
some kind of decision on our position as soon as possible in order that the
ADs can make decisions as to whether the BoF requests should be accepted.
(WREC folks, that means we want your input!)
>WREC has a somewhat difficult past, and is currently somewhat dormant. This
>may lead people to believe that the sensible thing to do is to close the
>group down and split any work items off to the new groups; I'd like to
>dispute this, and open more public discussion about the future of WREC.
>
>The group's past has been difficult because it had some work items (the
>taxonomy, and the known problems document) that had to be completed before
>"real" work could be started. Additionally, the interception proxy issues
>and misconceptions have plagued the group for some time; it's only recently
>that a clear consensus about them seems to be forming.
>
>However, these work items are nearly finished,
To further clarify, the taxonomy has been approved and is currently in the
rfc-editor queue.
> and interception proxies are
>an issue that can be resolved (either within the group, or in another
>non-Application group). The main reason for domancy of the group is the fact
>that there have been no further milestones identified for it, so that we're
>stuck at re-chartering.
>
>I'd argue that now is an excellent time for WREC to become an active and
>useful working group; there are many potential work items for it, including:
>
>* content peering
>* enhanced coherence mechanisms (invalidation)
>* log summary formats
>* surrogate role clarification
>* semantic transparency issues in intermediates
>* coordination with content negotiation, other groups which affect
> intermediates
>* proxy discovery (very important, in light of interception proxies)
That's a useful list. Thanks!
>More to the point, there's a real need in the IETF for a group that can
>address the Web infrastructure as a whole. Highly focused groups, while
>usually productive, can miss out on the bigger picture.
>
>To this point, I'd propose that WREC re-charter as soon as possible, with the
>above work items as well as others that come to light. In particular;
>
>* I'd like there to be open discussion with the Content Alliance
> participants on the best forum for content peering. I very much appreciate
> the fact that they've opened their mailing list and documents for public
> view; this is a good first step.
>
> At first glance, it seems confusing that they are proposing a separate
> working group, as content peering is squarely within the charter of WREC.
> While I can understand that this avoids some problems for them, I think it
> would be interesting to explore how their work and resources can be
> integrated into WREC.
Info on the group at: http://www.content-peering.org/
>* A relationship should be established with the EPSFW effort, if it evolves
> into a WG (as it appears it may). EPSFW doesn't seem to have as much
> overlap with WREC, except in that it affects proxies and involves semantic
> transparency issues. These need to be coordinated.
Info on the group at: http://www.extproxy.org/
The EPSFW folks("Extensible Proxies" - have you guys finalized on a name
yet? :) ) gave a presentation in Pittsburgh, and the group consensus there
was that this wasn't something that WREC should take on (that said I don't
recall any followup discussion on the mailing list, so we shouldn't assume
anything.)
To my knowledge the Content Alliance/Peering work hasn't had any such
review to date, and I think that it's vital we have some discussion before
any decision is made. I agree with Mark that at first glance it seems
confusing that there's a proposal for a separate group and would find it
useful - purely from a WREC management perspective - on why that proposal
was made.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST