W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2012

Re: updated draft charter

From: gaperik <gaperik@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 23:53:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4FCE7FE7.6010706@gmail.com>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
CC: W3C SysApps <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Adam Barth skrev 2012-06-05 21:01:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Carr, Wayne<wayne.carr@intel.com>  wrote:
>> We support adding back those deliverables.  We need to do is decide on what to present to the AC and Director as the limits of the scope and I don't see any reason those specs should be out of scope.
>> The WG can drop or defer specs if the WG decides not to work on them.  That's much simpler than adding them.  I'm just not seeing why we'd be more capable of deciding that for them.
> As I wrote previously:
> ---8<---
> > From a practical point of view, we're going to need to narrow down the
> deliverables at some point.  I'd much prefer to agree on a shorter
> list now before I commit to investing resources in this working group.
> --->8---
> Adam


Security model and "wake up" using System Message API/Application API 
are high on that list in my eyes.

However, managing multiple interfaces, such as wifi and mobile broadband 
interfaces efficiently both switching and multi homing situations is 
also a success factor early on I would say.

Also, if would be nice if DiffServ marking could be resolved one way or 
another since the way mobile broadband radio now works, it filters IP 
address and port to map in different radio channels (with very different 
characteristics which is why one don't want to mix audio/video/file 
transfer, etc).

But I recognize that this may be well beyond what the WG will/should/can 
include but am willing to support a discussion about such stuff if there 
is an interest.

Göran Eriksson

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:17 AM
>>> To: W3C SysApps
>>> Subject: updated draft charter
>>> Following the discussion that it should be up to the working group to prioritize
>>> work items even if this means that not all of them are completed within the two
>>> year initial charter period. I have added back the deliverables that were dropped
>>> when splitting them into phase one and two. The phase two deliverables are now
>>> listed in alphabetical order. If you feel we should drop one or more deliverables,
>>> this is now a good time to argue your case before we proceed to the AC Review.
>>> We are looking for horizontal reviews of the draft charter from the perspectives
>>> of security, privacy, accessibility and internationalization.
>>> --
>>> Dave Raggett<dsr@w3.org>  http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 09:51:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:09 UTC