be clearer about problem-statement draft purpose, and plan of work

[masinter]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2014Dec/0059.html

Make clear in the abstract and introduction is that the intent of this internet-draft is not necessarily be published as an RFC (although doing so might turn out to be useful.) Just a forward reference. A lot of the discussion was around what the intent of this (problem statement) document is.

• the plan of record should be captured "have the W3C perform its work, while the IETF patiently waits for the result; once it’s more or less done, we can take appropriate steps to incorporate / reference / clarify relationships with the outcome".

The question is how close are we to "more or less done". If that's a long time,
We prefer that we work together up front in order to minimize the risk that the results won't be palatable or compatible with IETF goals. In fact, more strongly: that the longer the IETF delays, the greater the integration problems likely will be down the road.

It was wrong to claim that IETF can't really commit to doing work. The normal way the IETF commits to doing work is to charter a working group, or for a chartered working group to take on a draft.

But we've already been down this road with IRI, where I promised participation of the browser community and didn't deliver. At the time, there wasn't a URL draft from WHATWG, and the path of turning 3987 into something that satisfied browser requirements was filled with roadblocks.

I'd imagine that before a new working group could be chartered, they'd want more of a commitment of participation, directly from the W3C and implementors, and not just from me (Larry) or Sam.