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.