Subject: PaceProtocolDesignTeam2 revised

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:20:58 -0400

I've revised the Pace, removing any assertions about consensus. Note 
that debate on PUT/DELETE, etc. would be off-topic for the proposed 
design team list (but not atom-syntax).

Robert Sayre

Abstract
------------------------
Create a new, open design team that focuses strictly on the Atom protocol.

Status
------------------------
Open

Supporters
------------------------
Robert Sayre
Sam Ruby

Rationale
------------------------
There are folks who are interested in helping with the Atom publishing 
protocol haven't been following the Atom mailing list due to the volume 
of messages and the dearth of protocol discussion. Creating a design 
team for just the protocol gives a more focused forum for those folks 
while letting the main mailing list spend more time on the 
seemingly-difficult parts of the format document.

Though the capabilities required are accurately listed in the charter, 
there has been a dearth of debate on many of the goals listed there. Six 
Apart is moving ahead with work in the protocol area 
(http://sixapart.com/developers/atom/typepad/), but perhaps not in a 
manner identical to what the WG will choose. This group will focus on 
issues such as introspection, "categories", URIs that require extension 
elements, management of templates and users, and recommendations and 
requirements for implementations that wish to extend the Atom Publishing 
Protocol.

Proposal
------------------------
Create a "design team" for completing the list of all the actions that 
need to be in the Atom protocol. Note that there is no formal definition 
of design teams in the IETF, and they can be created under rules chosen 
by the WG chairs. For this design team, we propose a mailing list open 
to anyone, whose only restriction is that the only initial topic for 
discussion is the needed actions for the Atom protocol, with the 
exception of debating the use of PUT and DELETE. It is assumed that the 
atom-syntax list will propose an equally capable mechanism if an 
alternative is required.

  The protocol design team will propose to the WG ways of closing all 
open issues in the Atom protocol document. The document editors will 
revise the protocol document based on what they hear from the WG.

Notes
------------------------
This group will work with the assumption that the primary interface to 
the Atom Publishing Protocol is REST with 4 verbs.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:10:07 -0700

> design team list (but not atom-syntax).

This seems really counter-intuitive: the principal goal of having the 
design team is to attract people to the discussion who care about 
protocol issues but don't have time or patience to put up with our 
endless torrents of verbiage about IDs and dates and so on.  So, it 
seems that the question of how best to use HTTP is one of the issues 
that this kind of person will care about.  I don't understand how 
ruling it out of bounds is going to help. -Tim

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:28:45 -0400

Tim Bray wrote:

> endless torrents of verbiage about IDs and dates and so on.  

Many interested in the protocol have no tolerance for endless torrents 
on PUT/DELETE vs. SOAP vs. custom headers. What are we going to do, 
disallow PUT and DELETE? They'll be there no matter what.

> So, it 
> that this kind of person will care about.  I don't understand how ruling 
> it out of bounds is going to help.

PaceProtocolDesignTeam takes the position that the implementation 
choices it presents are syntactic sugar.

PaceProtocolDesignTeam2 takes that to heart, and puts it out of bounds.

That is, discussion of HTTP trade-offs is prohibited until a coherent 
method of working with GET/POST/PUT/DELETE is worked out. None of the 
other methods proposed have anything on REST-with-4-verbs, IMO, other 
than the fact they work with incomplete HTTP implementations 
(compelling, admittedly).

Robert Sayre

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:17:16 -0400

Tim Bray wrote:
> it out of bounds is going to help. -Tim

The format document has enough coverage to be useful at the moment. 
Presumably some of the existing paces will make it even better.  By 
contrast, the protocol document is demonstrably incomplete.  And I have 
seen no evidence that there are paces in the pipeline which will close 
this gap.

I'd like to see closing the gap be the principle goal of this design 
group.  Discussion on alternatives to PUT and DELETE can continue in 
parallel.  In particular, I would encourage Paces to be written to cover 
any other alternative syntax that anybody would like to propose.

I would not oppose the spinning off of a design group (either now or at 
some point in the future) for that specific topic, but I would prefer 
not to dilute the purpose of this design group.

- Sam Ruby

---

From: [email-masked] (John Panzer)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:09:46 -0700

> ruling it out of bounds is going to help. -Tim
I can understand why putting this out of bounds makes sense to give 
other issues a chance to see the light of day.  But it doesn't make a 
lot of logical sense to someone new who hasn't been participating in the 
prior discussions, and I think we want to attract some of those people.  
Perhaps a rationale might help?  Or perhaps this could be expressed as a 
conditional moratorium (until the following charter issues have 
consensus...) though that seems problematic too.

-John

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:20:15 -0700

On Aug 28, 2004, at 10:28 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:

> on PUT/DELETE vs. SOAP vs. custom headers.

Hmm, you postulate the existence of a class of person who's interested 
in the Atom publishing protocol, but not about how it uses HTTP verbs, 
or whether it comprises a SOAP/WSDL module.  This seems 
counter-intuitive.

Having said that, I take Sam's point about wanting to focus on 
capabilities, and I agree.  I just don't think that ruling the 
elephants in the room to be unmentionable is going to help progress.  
-Tim

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:42:04 -0400

Tim Bray wrote:
> or whether it comprises a SOAP/WSDL module.  This seems counter-intuitive.
> 
> capabilities, and I agree.  I just don't think that ruling the elephants 
> in the room to be unmentionable is going to help progress.  -Tim

At the moment, we aren't experiencing endless torrents on PUT/DELETE vs 
SOAP vs. custom headers, so I'm OK with not enacting a full prohibition 
on such topics until/unless they become a problem.

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:56:51 -0400

Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Many interested in the protocol have no tolerance for endless 
>>> torrents on PUT/DELETE vs. SOAP vs. custom headers.
>>
>>

I see a group of people who want to make sure the protocol works on 
J2ME, Flash, and some support for SOAP.

I still see practically no voices that advocate getting rid of PUT and 
DELETE:

http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg09140.html

> on such topics until/unless they become a problem.

As long as reopening debate isn't *required*.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Joe Gregorio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:27:26 -0400

Robert, 
   First, thanks for writing this up.

> design team list (but not atom-syntax).

I believe that stating that "This group will work with the assumption 
that the primary interface to the Atom Publishing Protocol is 
REST with 4 verbs." should be enough and that if the discussion
ranges too far the chairs can declare a moratorium, assuming
they themselves aren't in the middle of the fray tearing up the pavement.

> Supporters

I have added my name to the list of supporters.

    Thanks,
    -joe

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:05:23 -0400

John Panzer wrote:

>> I don't understand how 

In another email, Joe Gregorio wrote:
 > REST with 4 verbs." should be enough

John,

I'd be surprised if anyone on the supporters list[0] is really attached 
to the moratorium language. Does Joe's approach address your concerns?

Robert Sayre

[0] currently on the list:

Robert Sayre
Sam Ruby
Mark Baker
Joe Gregorio
Mark Pilgrim

---

From: [email-masked] (John Panzer)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:10:07 -0700

Robert Sayre wrote:

>
> John Panzer wrote:
>
>>
>>> I don't understand how ruling it out of bounds is going to help. -Tim
>>>
>> lot of logical sense to someone new who hasn't been participating in 
>> the prior discussions, and I think we want to attract some of those 
>> people.  
>
>
> I'd be surprised if anyone on the supporters list[0] is really 
> attached to the moratorium language. Does Joe's approach address your 
> concerns?
>
Yes.

-John