Subject: [hybi] Arguments in the FAQ

From: Bruce Atherton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:37:37 -0700

I have an issue with the FAQ that I would appreciate some guidance from 
the WG on.

I have noted at the top of the FAQ that it is intended that it describe 
the state of the protocol as it currently exists and how it got that 
way. I do not believe it is intended as a platform for debate concerning 
whether a particular choice is a good one. The FAQ is an extremely poor 
platform for that purpose. The people who can most likely respond to the 
issues raised and perhaps be persuaded by the arguments are unlikely to 
be the ones to read it. The ones who are most likely to want to read the 
FAQ are only going to be confused by arguments that are irrelevant to 
the protocol as it now exists. The FAQ is supposed to clarify the 
protocol for them.

Given that, I intend to delete any such debating points that are raised 
in the FAQ unless the WG instructs me otherwise. I am about to do so now 
on the question asking why SHA-1 is used for hashing. IMNSHO 
contributions that more fully explain why SHA-1 was selected are 
welcome. Changes arguing for a different approach are ones that should 
be deleted.

So that the argument can be given in its appropriate place, I will start 
another thread on the mailing list that includes the FAQ and the 
debating points that will be deleted. But this thread concerns whether 
there is support for my cleaning up the FAQ in this way.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:45:20 -0700

Hi Bruce,
At 10:37 06-04-2011, Bruce Atherton wrote:
>I have an issue with the FAQ that I would appreciate some guidance 
>from the WG on.
>
>I have noted at the top of the FAQ that it is intended that it 
>describe the state of the protocol as it currently exists and how it 
>got that way. I do not believe it is intended as a platform for 
>debate concerning whether a particular choice is a good one. The FAQ is

There is a note at the top of the FAQ which says:

  "A note to contributors: Please do not use the FAQ as a debating document.
   The FAQ is intended to describe the protocol as it is currently defined in
   the spec. If you want to see a change in the spec, bring it up on the
   mailing list and see if you can  achieve a rough consensus. Do not present
   your arguments here as they will be removed.

   A second note to contributors: Please do not remove the Questions 
when answering
   them. This is a FAQ = Frequently Answered Questions, not FA = 
Frequent Answers.
   Please write answers in a FAQ style and not book narrative style."

>Given that, I intend to delete any such debating points that are 
>raised in the FAQ unless the WG instructs me otherwise. I am about 
>to do so now on the question asking why SHA-1 is used for hashing. 
>IMNSHO contributions that more fully explain why SHA-1 was selected 
>are welcome. Changes arguing for a different approach are ones that 
>should be deleted.

I suggest that you post a message to this mailing list before making 
such changes.  Please  use "FAQ" followed by a description in the 
subject line as some WG participants might wish to filter out these messages.

Please note that the FAQ on the Hybi Wiki is not a work item of this 
working group.  The WG Chairs posted a message ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg06449.html ) to 
explain why the FAQ was set up.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Hybi WG Secretary

---

From: Bruce Atherton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:17:35 -0700

>   your arguments here as they will be removed.

Yes, I wrote that a few weeks ago. I believe it is a good idea as the 
FAQ should be a document of the history of decisions in order to explain 
the protocol, not a place to argue about future changes. But that is 
just my opinion.

Yesterday there was an edit that went directly against that policy, so I 
thought I would bring the matter up here to see if anyone else supported 
my view.

>   Please write answers in a FAQ style and not book narrative style."

I take this to be a reference to the fact that the actual FAQ starts 
some distance down in the document. Does anyone object to me moving the 
goals of Websockets to a separate Wiki page and providing a reference to 
it from the FAQ? Then we can get rid of that note.

> subject line as some WG participants might wish to filter out these 

As you wish.

> explain why the FAQ was set up.

Right, and I think my view as to its purpose fits with the motivation 
described. I understand that the WG is not producing it as a working 
item, but at the same time I don't think it is right for me (or any 
other individual) to arbitrarily decide what the FAQ is or isn't. I 
certainly don't want to get into an EditWar 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EDITWAR).

> Hybi WG Secretary

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:04:43 -0700

Hi Bruce,
At 14:17 06-04-2011, Bruce Atherton wrote:
>Yes, I wrote that a few weeks ago. I believe it is a good idea as 
>the FAQ should be a document of the history of decisions in order to 
>explain the protocol, not a place to argue about future changes. But 
>that is just my opinion.

As nobody edited that, I gather that it is viewed as a good idea.

>Yesterday there was an edit that went directly against that policy, 
>so I thought I would bring the matter up here to see if anyone else 
>supported my view.

I'll call it a guideline instead of a policy.  Please see further 
comments below.

>some distance down in the document. Does anyone object to me moving 
>the goals of Websockets to a separate Wiki page and providing a 
>reference to it from the FAQ? Then we can get rid of that note.

As this does not seem to require a consensus call, I suggest that the 
people working on the FAQ keep things easy.  If it ends up stirring 
controversy, I am going to stick to the IETF standards process.

>Right, and I think my view as to its purpose fits with the 
>motivation described. I understand that the WG is not producing it 
>as a working item, but at the same time I don't think it is right 
>for me (or any other individual) to arbitrarily decide what the FAQ 
>is or isn't. I certainly don't want to get into an EditWar

As an individual comment, if it is not a work item, it can be 
considered as off-topic.  The Note Well ( 
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html ) is applicable.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Hybi WG Secretary

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:10:37 +0300

> the protocol, not a place to argue about future changes. But that is
+1
actually that was also my original idea when I suggested to start a FAQ

> it from the FAQ? Then we can get rid of that note.
the HyBi wg has still as a deliverable a
document describing the Design Space characterization
where I think the goals descriptions of WebSockets should go.
(see: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/hybi/charters _

The precedent version of the document has expired and not renewed mainly 
due to
lack of time/cycles from the editors...
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/hybi/draft-ietf-hybi-design-space/

If you would like help and have cycles for it, please contact the chairs 
(Gabriel and I).

For the time being, I do not want to start another wiki page for 
something that is
still supposed to go in a wg item.

cheers
/Sal

-- 
Salvatore Loreto
www.sloreto.com