W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

FW: [widgets] Minutes from 19 March 2009 Voice Conference

From: David Rogers <david.rogers@omtp.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:06:11 -0000
Message-ID: <4C83800CE03F754ABA6BA928A6D94A06019571CF@exch-be14.exchange.local>
To: "public-webapps" <public-webapps@w3.org>


-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:Art.Barstow@nokia.com] 
Sent: 20 March 2009 11:27
To: David Rogers
Cc: Nick Allott
Subject: Re: [widgets] Minutes from 19 March 2009 Voice Conference

Hi David,

As the draft minutes indicate, if you want any changes, please send  
them to public-webapps.

-Art


On Mar 19, 2009, at 4:23 PM, ext David Rogers wrote:

> Hi Art,
>
> Please can I ask for some corrections to the minutes as follows as I
> believe it is important that my points are captured. Apologies for the
> micro-editing:
>
> 1) Please can you change the original text to what I said, just so  
> it is
> absolutely clear (I know you clarified below but I'd like no potential
> for error on this one): "...some non-members of W3C have interest..."
>
>
> ORIG:    David: the concern is some members have interest along the  
> ell.
>     curves
>     ... but please be advised this could be a complicated area
>     ... re IPR issues
>
> ....
>
>     David: the concern is some NON-members have interest
>
>
> 2)    "David: you can't just close your eyes and pretend there is no
> potential problem"
>
> ORIG: David: can't pretend there is no problem there
>
>
> 3) "David: you need to think..."
>
> ORIG: David: need to think what to do if there are patents
>
> 4) Honestly I think I actually swore to myself at this point, so I  
> guess
> it is best to delete this point instead ;-)
>
> ORIG: David: how do I do that?
>
> 5) "...will submit their own comments to the web-apps mailing list as
> agreed on an OMTP call last week."
>
>   David: OMTP operators will submit their own comments
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> David.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webapps-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
> Sent: 19 March 2009 14:21
> To: public-webapps
> Subject: [widgets] Minutes from 19 March 2009 Voice Conference
>
> The minutes from the March 19 Widgets voice conference are available
> at the following and copied below:
>
>   <http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html>
>
> WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
> them to the public-webapps mail list before 26 March 2009 (the next
> Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered
> Approved.
>
> -Regards, Art Barstow
>
>
>     [1]W3C
>
>        [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                                 - DRAFT -
>
>                         Widgets Voice Conference
>
> 19 Mar 2009
>
>     [2]Agenda
>
>        [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0815.html
>
>     See also: [3]IRC log
>
>        [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-irc
>
> Attendees
>
>     Present
>            Art, Frederick, Dan, Andy, Andrew, David, Mike, Thomas,
>            Bryan, Marcos, Arve, Benoit, Robin
>
>     Regrets
>     Chair
>            Art
>
>     Scribe
>            Art
>
> Contents
>
>       * [4]Topics
>           1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
>           2. [6]Announcements
>           3. [7]DigSig: no longer require the first signature to be
>              processed
>           4. [8]DigSig: Remove DSAwithSHA1 requirement? Status of
>              requirement R47 (Section 2)?
>           5. [9]DigSig: Suggest removing the restatement of algorithm
>              requirements in section 7.1, specifically remove #5a and
>              #5b.
>           6. [10]DigSig: reference widgets packaging zip relative path
>           7. [11]DigSig: Are we ready to approve the publication of a
>              new WD?
>           8. [12]P&C spec: should the config file be mandatory?
>           9. [13]P&C: <option>s on <feature>s
>          10. [14]P&C spec: status of P&C LC comment handling; next  
> steps
>       * [15]Summary of Action Items
>       _________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>     <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
>
>     <scribe> Scribe: Art
>
>     <Marcos> [IPcaller] jjjis
>
>     <Marcos> argh
>
>     <Marcos> zaki, [IPcaller] is me
>
>     <Marcos> bha
>
>     <Marcos> bah
>
>     Date: 19 March 2009
>
> Review and tweak agenda
>
>     AB: draft agenda published on March 18:
>     [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/08
>     15.html
>     ... Since then, Frederick proposed some agenda changes via
>     [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/08
>     31.html ; we will accept those that intersect the original agenda;
>     add e.; skip the editorial points (f., g., h.)
>     ... There is also a proposal by Marcos to add a new <option>  
> element
>     ([18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/0
>     816.html) that will be added to the agenda.
>     ... Are there any other change requests?
>
>       [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0815.html
>       [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0831.html
>       [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0816.html)
>
>     [None]
>
>     Benoit: what about RSS?
>
>     AB: not today
>
>     David: what about the PAG?
>
>     AB: I have no new info about the PAG
>
>     MS: it is being set up; I am responsible for setting it up; I  
> have a
>     draft charter
>     ... will go to W3M soon if hasn't been done already
>     ... hope to get the annoucement out RSN
>     ... some logistics still be worked out
>
>     David: PP says AC reps need to get involved; would appreciate an
>     update
>
>     MS: I don't have much more to add; nothing surprising; can look at
>     the REX PAG for an example
>
>     David: we weren't members then
>
>     TLR: we will give plenty of advance notice
>
> Announcements
>
>     AB: any short announcements? I don't have any.
>
>     David: BONDI review period ends March 23
>
> DigSig: no longer require the first signature to be processed
>
>     <drogersuk> [19]http://bondi.omtp.org is the link for BONDI
>
>       [19] http://bondi.omtp.org/
>
>     <tlr> welcome back to a former co-chair of one of the previous
>     incarnations of this wG
>
>     AB: Frederick mentioned his change on March 18
>     [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/08
>     30.html
>     ... and added to the latest ED
>     [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
>     ... any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we  
> approve
>     it as is?
>
>       [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0830.html
>       [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-
> signatures
>
>     <fjh>
>     [22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
>
>       [22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-
> signatures
>
>     MC: I approve
>
>     AB: FH's proposal approved
>
> DigSig: Remove DSAwithSHA1 requirement? Status of requirement R47
> (Section 2)?
>
>     AB: these issues are still open. Briefly, what is the plan to
>     address them?
>
>     FH: want to add an Note that XML Sec WG has not reached  
> consensus on
>     the algorithms for XML Sig 1.1
>     ... I don't want to do anything rash here
>     ... We need to get more feedback
>
>     AB: support your proposal for the note
>
>     <fjh> suggest to add editorial note along these lines:
>
>     David: we are discussing this in OMTP
>     ... different companies have different opinions
>     ... Want to know if an IP check has been made?
>
>     <fjh> The XML Security WG has not yet achieved consensus on  
> required
>     algorithms in XML SIgnature 1.1, in particular whether to mandate
>     ECDSAwighSHA256
>
>     FH: WGs don't do patent checks
>     ... but we have talked about it
>     ... We have conflicting info
>     ... The risk may not be too bad but I am Not a Lawyer
>     ... We are certainly seeking feedback
>     ... I also noted T-Mobile's comments on this
>
>     David: the concern is some members have interest along the ell.
>     curves
>     ... but please be advised this could be a complicated area
>     ... re IPR issues
>
>     <fjh> continued editors note text - The XML Security WG is
>     requesting feedback on their FPWD of XML SIgnature 1.1 and  
> feedback
>     for algorithms related to Widget Signature is also requested.
>
>     TLR: we know their are Claims of IPR issues
>     ... I am not aware of any disclosures within the XML Sec WG
>     ... We do not have knowledge of patents
>     ... Some WG members want ell curves and some do not
>     ... This is complicated area; we are trying to navigate the space
>     with some incomplete data
>
>     David: the concern is some NON-members have interest
>
>     <fjh> thomas notes ability to do interop may impact whether  
> elliptic
>     curve becomes mandatory or not
>
>     David: just because W3C members have not declared interest doesn't
>     mean non-members don't have concerns
>
>     <fjh> in other words, if sufficient participation in interop  
> happens
>
>     AB: David, Thomas pelase enter your comments directly into the IRC
>
>     David: can't pretend there is no problem there
>
>     AB: what do you think we should do?
>
>     David: need to think what to do if there are patents
>
>     FH: don't think we can make progress on this on today's call
>
>     David: want a firm action
>
>     AB: proposal?
>
>     David: want XML Sec WG to pursue this
>
>     TLR: then you should join the XML Sec WG
>
>     David: how do I do that?
>
>     TLR: send your comment to the XML Sec WG's mail list
>
>     FH: need an email with specific comments
>
>     David: OMTP operators will submit their own comments
>     ... these minutes serve as a record
>
>     FH: these minutes won't help that much
>     ... an e-mail to XML Sec WG wold be best
>
>     TLR: if OMTP members send the comments to public-webapps that  
> might
>     be good enough
>
>     <drogersuk> OK, no problem - as minuted the OMTP members have been
>     asked to individually respond
>
>     FH: emails are much easier for me to communicate with my WG than
>     minutes
>
>     <tlr> drogersuk, I don't think you're disagreeing with what's
>     actually going on
>
>     <drogersuk> exactly :-)
>
>     FH: I propose the text I suggested earlier
>
>     David: I agree
>
>     AB: any objections to FH's earlier proposed text?
>
>     [ None ]
>
> DigSig: Suggest removing the restatement of algorithm requirements in
> section 7.1, specifically remove #5a and #5b.
>
>     <fjh>
>     [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/08
>     27.html
>
>       [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0827.html
>
>     AB: Frederick posted a proposal on March 18
>     ([24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/0
>     827.html)
>     ... any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we  
> approve
>     it as is?
>
>       [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0827.html)
>
>     FH: this is pretty straight forward
>     ... I've done some rewording
>
>     AB: any comments, concerns?
>
>     [ None]
>
>     AB: we can consider this proposal approved
>
> DigSig: reference widgets packaging zip relative path
>
>     AB: Frederick made a proposal re checking the validity of relative
>     paths in a signature
>     [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/08
>     24.html
>
>       [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0824.html
>
>     <fjh>
>     [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/07
>     87.html
>
>       [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0787.html
>
>     AB: Thomas then responded with a question about the "interaction"
>     between FH's proposal and TLR's "and a manifest approach for URI
>     dereferencing".
>     ... let's start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns?  
> let's
>     start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns?
>
>     <tlr> (postponing that question is what I was about to suggest)
>
>     FH: I added an additional constraint
>     ... I think the intent before was implied but this is now explicit
>     ... Marcos helped me with this
>
>     AB: any objections to approving FH's proposal?
>
>     [ None ]
>
>     AB: consider this approved
>     ... TLR, what about the interaction issue?
>
>     TLR: agree we should defer to mail list
>     ... need to decide the URI issue separately
>     ... but wanted to make it clear we need to make a decision
>
>     FH: we may need to do some tweaking with the References
>     ... e.g. flesh out the constraints
>
>     TLR: agree; but must first decide on derefencing URI model
>
> DigSig: Are we ready to approve the publication of a new WD?
>
>     <fjh> but this would be very localized within widget signature  
> spec
>
>     AB: the last time we published the DigSig spec was April 2008.  
> Since
>     then, we have made significant changes and improvements. It may  
> not
>     be perfect yet but I propose a new WD be published next week.
>     Comments?
>
>     FH: I think I have addressed all of the comments on the list
>     ... If I missed anything, please speak up
>     ... I am ready for a new WD
>
>     MC: after FH makes his changes I have a few minor Editorial  
> changes
>     to make
>
>     FH: can you do the publrules?
>
>     MC: yes
>
>     AB: any objections to a new WD?
>
>     FH: what needs to be done?
>
>     AB: you and MC make your changes; telll me and I'll submit the pub
>     req
>
>     RESOLUTION: after FH incorporates the latest agreements, we will
>     publish a new WD of the Widgets DigSig spec
>
> P&C spec: should the config file be mandatory?
>
>     AB: On March 9, Marcos proposed via
>     [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/06
>     79.html that the config file be mandatory. We had a short  
> discussion
>     about this during our March 12 VC but came to no resolution
>     ([28]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#item07). Let's
>     take a few minutes and try to get a resolution on this question.
>     ... Marcos, where do we stand on this?
>
>       [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0679.html
>       [28] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#item07).
>
>     MC: I'd like to hear others
>
>     RB: my only objection was lack of use cases
>     ... but Mark indicates it would help with localization
>
>     MC: do you support the localization model proposed by Mark?
>
>     RB: yes; may need some tweaking
>
>     MC: but that would be significant changes
>     ... that new model changes a lot of stuff in the P&C spec
>
>     RB: there were some other issues with the loc model
>
>     MC: think this is over engineering
>
>     RB: since Mark just sent this email may want some more review time
>
>     MC: Mark's proposal says must identify which elements and attrs  
> can
>     be localized
>     ... the model for the UA becomes more complicated
>
>     AB: can we separate these two issues?
>
>     MC: agree it should be mandatory
>
>     RB: it should mandatory if there is a good reasons
>
>     TLR: should be mandatory if good reasons and l10n and uri deref  
> are
>     good reasons
>
>     BS: should it be mandatory?
>
>     RB: I can live with it
>
>     AB: are there any objections to the config file being mandatory?
>
>     [ None]
>
>     RESOLUTION: the config file will be Mandatory
>
>     BS: need to work on the l10n model
>     ... appears Mark's proposal will address the issue
>
>     AB: let's followup on the mail list re Mark's proposal and drop  
> the
>     discussion today
>
>     BS: where is the complexity Marcos?
>
>     MC: implementing and authoring
>
>     BS: think it helps with implementing
>
> P&C: <option>s on <feature>s
>
>     AB: on March 18 Marcos proposed a new <option> element
>     [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
> 2009JanMar/08
>     16.html This resulted in some interesting discussion including the
>     issue "Are We Done Yet?" i.e. should we take on new features when
>     the spec is already in Last Call. Since Marcos and I had a related
>     discussion in IRC yesterday, it isn't surprising that others were
>     asking the same question.
>     ... let's start with the proposal. Marcos, briefly what are you
>     proposing and does Opera consider it a show stopper for v1?
>
>       [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
> 2009JanMar/0816.html
>
>     MC: we need a way to parameterize features
>     ... can use a URI scheme
>     ... another way is more author friendly using name/value attribute
>     pairs
>     ... Arve gave a better example
>
>     RB: I think this is a good feature but not sure it is essential
>
>     AB: so is this a show stopper for v1?
>
>     MC: yes, I think we need it
>     ... but I don't think it is super complicated
>
>     AB: so it is important but not criticial enough to block P&C?
>
>     MC: yes, that basically true
>
> P&C spec: status of P&C LC comment handling; next steps
>
>     AB: during the Paris f2f meeting we agreed to publish a new LC  
> WD in
>     March ([30]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html#item06).
>     Another issue is that the comment tracking document for LC #1 is
>     empty:
>     [31]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- 
> widgets-2
>     0081222/
>     ... let's start with "what must be done before LC #2 can be
>     published?"
>
>       [30] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html#item06).
>       [31] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-
> widgets-20081222/
>
>     MC: #1 - the l10n model
>     ... need to factor in Jere's model; we've had some discussions
>     ... currently this is a show stopper
>     ... #2 - need to specify <options> if we are going to specify that
>     ... #3 <access> - hard and significant
>     ... #4 - <update> element is in flux because of the related patent
>
>     RB: what about URI dereferecing?
>
>     MC: that does not affect the P&C spec
>
>     MC; #5 - step 3 - the new l10n model affects this
>
>     scribe: #6 - step 5 - affected by l10n changes and other things
>     ... #7 - step 7 - need to add <preference> element and the
>     <screenshot> element
>
>     MC: if we add Mark's proposal, just about every part of step #7
>     would need to change
>     ... I removed the nested feature element for v1
>     ... #8 - update the RelaxNG schema
>     ... also need to address one last LC #1 comment
>
>     AB: who can volunteer to help with these?
>
>     RB: what specific items do you seek help Marcos?
>
>     MC: I'll take help on any of these
>
>     RB: I'll take feature and screenshot
>
>     AB: thanks Robin
>
>     RB: the schema work can be done in CR
>
>     <Bryan> dropping off now
>
>     <darobin> ACTION: RB to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next
>     week [recorded in
>     [32]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action01]
>
>     <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - RB
>
>     <darobin> ACTION: Robin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for
>     next week [recorded in
>     [33]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action02]
>
>     <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Robin
>
>     <darobin> ACTION: darobin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for
>     next week [recorded in
>     [34]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action03]
>
>     <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - darobin
>
>     <darobin> RESOLUTION: we are feature complete
>
>     <drogersuk> Let me take this back to OMTP first
>
>     <darobin> AB: anyone obejct to not taking in any new features?
>
>     <darobin> DR: want to check with OMTP that feature-freeze is okay
>
>     <darobin> AB: okay
>
>     <darobin> AB: Marcos, what's the time frame?
>
>     <darobin> AB: end of the month
>
>     <darobin> AB: thanks a lot
>
>     <darobin> AB: will look into extending this to 90min
>
>     <darobin> ADJOURNED
>
>     <darobin> TR: what's the time for this call? we're in DST  
> confusion
>     week
>
>     <DKA> Thanks!
>
>     <darobin> AB: the frame of reference is 0900 W3C Time (formerly
>     known as Boston time)
>
>     <darobin> a pleasure ArtB :)
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>     [NEW] ACTION: darobin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for  
> next
>     week [recorded in
>     [35]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action03]
>     [NEW] ACTION: RB to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next  
> week
>     [recorded in
>     [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action01]
>     [NEW] ACTION: Robin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next
>     week [recorded in
>     [37]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action02]
>
>     [End of minutes]
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.19/2010 - Release Date:
> 03/19/09 07:05:00


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.19/2010 - Release Date:
03/19/09 19:03:00
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 13:07:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT