W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > June 2009

Minutes for 14 May 2009

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:01:47 +1000
Message-Id: <EC58885A-7E9D-42EC-9ADA-725FB3D8B5D7@mnot.net>
To: public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
                                   - DRAFT -

                                 W3C/IETF call

14 May 2009

Attendees

   Present
          TimBL, mnot, Plh, lisa, alexey, JohnK

   Regrets
          Thomas

   Chair
          mnot

   Scribe
          plh

Contents

     * Topics
         1. action items
         2. Status of TAG findings
         3. Status of CORS
         4. status of web sockets
         5. Link relation registry work
         6. RFC4329 - JavaScript Media Types
         7. URI/IRI coordination
         8. Web Security Workshop
         9. Future meetings
        10. html 5 and vcard
     * Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________________



action items

   <scribe> ACTION: Lisa to review Content-Type sniffing I-D

   is done

   <scribe> ACTION: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) to explore involving NIST
   in a security workshop

   Lisa will ping her back

Status of TAG findings

   Mnot: someone brought a TAG finding in IETF, suggesting it was
   authoritative. wasn't sure what the external status of those.
   ... how should we (IETF) take them?

   Tim: you should take them as same as recommendations from the IESG.
   ... if IESG tells us something, we will pay attention. suggest same
   thing for TAG.
   ... the IESG has total authority, unlike the TAG, but carries a lot  
of
   weight.

   mnot: IESG doesn't come up with very detailed technical work, unlike
   the TAG.

   Tim: TAG comes up with how specs come together, like WWW arch. sort  
of
   advises.

   JohnK: the IAB does technical work, not sure how it compares here.

   mnot: even if the IESG or IAB come up with documents, it goes  
through a
   process, unlike TAG findings.

   Tim: correct.
   ... TAG members solicit comments in various groups

   JohnK: the IAB does quite that, soliciting comments.

   mnot: the discussion was around HTML5, and I wasn't sure how to take
   status of findings.

   tim: they shouldn't be considered as Recommendations. The TAG could  
do
   that if it wants to.

Status of CORS

   <mnot> plh: originally called the access control specification

   <mnot> plh: brought here because larry masinter was concerned that WG
   didn't have good representation from a HTTP perspective

   <mnot> plh: saw that mnot solicited review from HTTPbis

   <mnot> ACTION: mnot to review CORS

   <mnot> plh: mechanism may be deployed soon

   <mnot> plh: also may be used for fonts

status of web sockets

   <mnot> plh: don't know if it will be deployed soon

   mnot: came up at last ietf conf. hypertext bidirectional. mailing  
list
   was created in this area, not only about web sockets.
   ... discussion has been active there.
   ... working on problem statement and scope.
   ... will come up again at next ietf meeting in japan.

   lisa: couple of different ideas, not sure how it will come up  
together.
   but excited to see the discussion.

Link relation registry work

   mnot: started to revive the link http header a long time ago.
   ... reintroducing the header but only reestablishing an overall for
   typed links for the Web.
   ... (atom link registration, html4 relations, html5 relation  
registry)
   ... work is now in the end game.
   ... would like some formal engagement with the html5 working group.
   ... tried to address feedback from some of the html5 folks.
   ... pinged the working group chairs a month ago.
   ... and didn't get a response.

   <scribe> ACTION: plh to follow with Sam Ruby on link relation  
registry
   work

   mnot: not going to publish a new document soon. current document is
   suitable for review.

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link- 
header/

RFC4329 - JavaScript Media Types

   mnot: HTML5 is giving counter advice; does it need an update? brought
   up by Julian Reschtke
   ... the rfc is informational, not standard track.

   <scribe> ACTION: plh to talk to Sam Ruby about RFC 4329.

   mnot: directions from the html5 wg would be useful.

URI/IRI coordination

   John: it's been escalated to the IAB but no schedule yet. IDNA bis is
   in a state of confusion but hoping we're making progress.
   ... one of the key questions is what kind of domain names are  
permitted
   in IRI and URI.
   ... percent encoding in utf-8 in URI would be an issue for IRI as  
well.
   ... some coordination with html5 might be useful to be in sync.

   mnot: this is a serious issue indeed and the html5 has probably
   different ideas.
   ... would it be useful to collect the issues somewhere?

   John: yes.

   mnot: if you send me what you have, I'm willing to help. will also  
get
   some input from Thomas as well.

   <scribe> ACTION: John to send IRI issues to Mark

   <scribe> ACTION: Mark to put IRI issues in wiki

Web Security Workshop

   mnot: some discussion during the html5 meeting in SF, whether we  
could
   get the right people in the room.
   ... thomas thought it would be useful, providing we have the protocol
   and user agent people.
   ... goal is problem statement, not to solve problems.
   ... couldn't be a large group of people
   ... fairly constrained set of the right people

   <JcK> plh: That is really URI/IRI issues in both case -- the URIs are
   the much harder problem in some ways. In some respects, the _only_  
IRI
   problem is how much they can be treated as protocol elements and what
   that means

   mnot: we had the action item to explore involving NIST
   ... is it still of interest?

   Alexey: we should probably talk to Tim Polk

   <scribe> ACTION: Alexey to talk to Tim Polk

   mnot: anyone else from W3C besides Thomas?

   plh: not that I can think of at this time

Future meetings

   mnot: we have a call scheduled in July on the 16
   ... that's a thursday
   ... 2 weeks before IETF in Stockholm
   ... volunteer to chair next meeting after that?

   <scribe> ACTION: plh to plan a September call

   <timbl> I will not be able to make July 16 (or any date near it)

   mnot: next opportunity for w3c/ietf meeting?

   plh: possibly in november during tpac 2009?

   timb: Jun 30/July 2 week might work for me

   mnot: june 29?
   ... will follow on the list

html 5 and vcard

   mnot: some coordination?

   plh: possibly, that's moving target.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Alexey to talk to Tim Polk [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-ietf-minutes.html#action08]
   [NEW] ACTION: John to send IRI issues to Mark [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-ietf-minutes.html#action06]
   [NEW] ACTION: Lisa to review Content-Type sniffing I-D [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-ietf-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Mark to put IRI issues in wiki [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-ietf-minutes.html#action07]
   [NEW] ACTION: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) to explore involving NIST  
in a
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-ietf-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: mnot to review CORS [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-ietf-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: plh to follow with Sam Ruby on link relation registry
   work [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-ietf-minutes.html#action04]
   [NEW] ACTION: plh to plan a September call [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-ietf-minutes.html#action09]
   [NEW] ACTION: plh to talk to Sam Ruby about RFC 4329. [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-ietf-minutes.html#action05]


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 04:02:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 June 2009 04:02:25 GMT