This is GREAT; thanks for arranging this, David. A few quick
comments;
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:43:31AM -0600, David E. Martin wrote:
> We had a good discussion at the Webi LunchBoF Tuesday. We talked
> about how to get more involvement and where we should head. It was
> not an official Webi meeting, but an informal chance to brainstorm.
> Some items from the discussion (in random order). These were
> discussion topics, not decisions.
>
> 1) Ned Freed and Allison Mankin chaired the OPES BoF and promised
> more IAB attention on content distribution issues. The increased
> focus on OPES will probably help Webi as well. We should try and
> take advantage of this by involving some of the interested parties
> from Webi.
>
> 2) IBM is working on documenting the invalidation protocol used in
> WebSphere and is planning on releasing a draft "soon." The
> requirements draft has some concepts that are pretty specific to
> WCIP and would benefit from more datapoints.
This is very good; hopefully, more candidates means more participants
and points of view, and a better product in the long run.
> 3) The two activities that are identified in the charter for Webi
> are invalidation and discovery. The most intellectually
> interesting area is discovery, but the group chose to work on
> invalidation as a first priority. There was a good bit of interest
> in discovery issues.
This is good to hear.
> 4) One of the items from the OPES BoF was the need for OPES proxy
> "tracing." It is possible that a Webi discovery protocol could be
> used for this. Since OPES has a ton of work to do, we may be able
> to get some additional Webi participation for discovery.
>
> 5) The requirements draft has substantially all the requirements,
> but could use some editing for readability and flow.
>
> 6) There was discussion about whether the W3C might be a more
> appropriate place for the Webi/OPES/CDI work. The W3C has more
> dedicated resources than the IETF and a somewhat more focused
> process. In general, the feeling is that the W3C is more focused on
> schema-type issues and less on protocol issues.
The W3C should certainly be involved in Web-related efforts, but it's
VERY resource-constrained right now, and I doubt that it would be
able to dedicate resources to such an effort.
I'm less worried about the focus; W3C has shown interest in Web
scaling issues before, and with the right participants and invited
experts, it could do a fine job IMHO.
Perhaps we should concentrate on a liason with the W3C (either
through the ADs, as I believe already exists, or directly).
> 7) Although there might be advantages to re-chartering the Webi
> work, the current turmoil in the content networking space means
> that we should be stay with what we have. We're the only group in
> the space that is chartered right now and we don't want to mess
> with that!
> 8) Almost any work in this space needs some involvement from Microsoft.
> We'll try to approach them with whatever channels we have.
>
> 9) We hope that the draft from IBM, the updates to the requirements
> document, and the discussion of discovery will cause some quality discussion
> on the list.
>
> 10) It might be a good idea to hold a regular conference call--either
> between the ADs and the chairs of OPES, Webi, and CDI or among the general
> membership of the groups.
Good idea.
> 11) The OPES, Webi, and CDI groups have enough overlapping issues that it
> might be good to have a coordination working group like IMPP is for the
> instant messaging space.
>
> At the lunch:
> Jules Aronson, David Martin, Ian Cooper, Graham Klyne, Lee Rafalow, Stephen
> McHenry, Joseph Hui.
-- Mark Nottingham, http://www.mnot.net/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:23:00 MST