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.
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, 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)
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.
* 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.
WREC has been languishing for a while, for a number of reasons. This doesn't
mean that there isn't a role for it, and that it can't address new issues.
Instead of killing it and wasteing a lot of effort, let's address those
reasons and move forward.
--
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)