W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > December 2011

minutes: W3C/IETF liaison call 2011-11-29

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:09:28 +0100
Message-Id: <59D825DA-6E83-4DF7-9AC9-93B8D0E51870@w3.org>
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
Below, the minutes from the last liaison all.  Apologies for the lateness.
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  (@roessler)

Minutes for W3C/IETF Coordination Call

Chair: Thomas Roessler

In Attendance...

Thomas Roessler
Peter Saint-Andre
Sean Turner
Mark Nottingham
John Klensin
Philippe Le Hégaret


Stephen Farrell


* webappsec / websec

- FPWD for CSP pending at W3C, group shaping up very well

- any news from IETF websec WG?

Discussion about key pinning proposal from folks at Google, and how that relates to STS.  Expect key pinning to be accepted as WG item.

Discussion about mime-sniffing. Good feedback in Taipei, slowly
getting cleared up. Major thing is registry question. Energy from Adam
and Larry; comments from others to get this moving again.


Is there a need for this from HTML5 spec? Timing concerns? Reference
is in HTML5 spec now -> no worries.

* IRI/URL discussion

- TPAC discussions: 

Discussion with i18n core WG at W3C; Mike Smith volunteered to be
point at W3C during TPAC. The right people from both sides are
participating in these discussions, including coordination with i18n
Core WG and IRI WG chairs. Folks who are involved have good handle on
what's in scope for parsing document. Discussion between StPeter and
Hixie - there's strawman text in HTML spec; didn't see strawman as
complete in any fashion; hopes somebody else will take over. That
"somebody else" may be Adam. Talk with Mike to figure out what needs
to go into this document. There's also another URL parsing spec that
might get folded in. Placeholder text currently in HTML5 spec to be
pulled into separate document within HTML WG, likely including content
from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-url-01 and perhaps also

- any news from Taipei?

Discussion about getting RFC 3987 (core IRI) and RFC 4395
(registration) further along and finished up. Always challenge; hope
to set up call with chair(s), to bang out further issues. Scope
overlap? Concerns about what an IRI is, and what problem space gets
addressed where?

Klensin: Should IRI spec make changes to basic URI syntax? IRI
appropriate basis to build localization solutions on? Need to look at
an internationalization model that's different from the "it's a URI
that has some stuff in it etc etc".

PLH will bring IRI minutes from Taipei to Interaction Domain's
attention; revisit at next meeting in some more detail.

JCK: The key issue here is whether we can, procedurally, keep the
various IRI bits marching forward without an in-depth review of where
it fits with "grown-up i18n" and, if doing that, leaves us in a
i18n/l10n hole we can't easily get out of. One of the things that
happened (technically, but symptomatically of the procedural issue) in
Taipei was a Larry Masinter- Dave Thaler discussion, with me adding
examples, demonstrating that we really don't understand IRI -> URI
domain name translation that would work both unambiguously and
consistently. If we don't have a normative translation / parsing
definition for something as seemingly-simple as domain names, a
normative reference from HTML5 to something that uncertain is bad

JCK suggests that one workaround would be to remove the normative
reference to IRI in the HTML5 spec and retain only the URI one. If we
do that, then IRI remains (at least normatively) a presentation issue
as/until things are sorted out and gets it out of the HTML5 critical

* WebRTC

W3C work was discussed, no report yet from IETF 82 sessions.

* possible crypto APIs at W3C

- Discussions at TPAC resulted in draft charter:


Charter is currently under informal review. Several reviews have been
provided and need to be incorporated.


Basic goal: support for key features from CMS (~ XADES) but in a
JSON/JavaScript-friendly representation.

Discussions were productive, three documents appear to be close to
acceptance as WG items (small changes requested before publication).
Several application working groups (CORE, ALTO, XMPP, etc.) provided
input and are interested in using the output of the WG. A use cases
document might be one result of that input.

Open issue is how WG is going to support serialization.

* geolocation API level 2
- FPWD to be published soon


Previous reservations about privacy, not much has changed in that

This API includes civic location type. Non-normative between RFC 4119
and the W3C format. Desirable to have coordination and review from

ACTION: Peter to bring this to the attention of Robert Sparks and the
GEOPRIV WG chairs.

* Web workers and charsets

Participants unfamiliar with the issue, to be pursued offline and
during the next call.

* next steps with "mutual review expectations" document?

People seem to think this is reasonable. Do we publish it as a wiki
page or as something more formal?

ACTION: Thomas to drop document into W3C/IETF liaison wiki.


* "happiana"

Break-out session on registries at TPAC -- minutes unknown. (Proposed by Debbie

Informal discussions at IETF 82, output expected in the next few

ACTION: Peter to ping discussants about producing writeups / practical proposals.

Mark wonders if we need a document about how and why to choose various
registration poilcies when setting up a registry. Peter notes that
Barry Leiba has worked on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-iana-policy-update and that
Barry's work might get folded into the "bis" version of RFC 5226 in
coordination with Michelle Cotton from IANA.

* Next Meeting

ACTION: Peter to schedule next call at end of January or early
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 19:09:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:34 UTC