Subject: [Jmap] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-jmap-00-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 06:46:24 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-jmap-00-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-jmap/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the description, which includes hints at the pain current solutions
result in, I would think that the first deliverable (problem statement)
is not needed.

If the WG needs to work on a problem statement then perhaps the problem
is not full understood yet...

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:45:36 +0000

Hi Spencer,

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017, at 03:04 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

> Hi, Alexey,

> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Alexey Melnikov
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Hi Alvaro,

>>
>>  On Thu, Jan 19, 2017, at 02:46 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>>  > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-jmap-00-
>>  > 04: No Objection
>>
>>  > Given the description, which includes hints at the pain current
>>  > solutions result in, I would think that the first deliverable
>>  > (problem statement) is not needed.
>>
>> The charter says that it might not be published as an RFC.
>>
>>  > If the WG needs to work on a problem statement then perhaps the
>>  > problem is not full understood yet...
>>
>> I think the problem is understood in certain circles, but there
>> might be
>>  some disagreement on details. I found current discussions on
>>  problems to
>>  be a rather interesting read, because I ran into many of them
>>  (and fixed
>>  when I could). I think this document would be useful to
>>  implementors and
>>  protocol designers.

> What I think I'm hearing you saying implicitly is "a lot of people are
> trying a bunch of disconnected things, at least some of which are
> dumb, and this document may help motivate those people to stop trying
> things at random and implement what this working group comes up with".
> 

> Is that a fair summary?

Yes, pretty much.

> It's not what I usually think about, when we do problem statements in
> TSV, but ART is different, so that could make sense.
> 

> Spencer

>> Best Regards,

>>  Alexey