W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2009

Draft minutes of TAG teleconference of 13 August 2009

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:31:18 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <OF5FF4CA03.6BEDE7EB-ON8525761F.004FA5A8-8525761F.004FC446@lotus.com>
Larry Masinter has provided draft minutes of the TAG teleconference of 13 
August 2009.  These are now checked in at [1].   A text-only copy is 
provided below.  Thank you.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/08/13-minutes.html

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                 TAG Teleconference of 13 August 2009

13 Aug 2009

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/08/13-agenda

Attendees

   Present
          Ashok_Malhotra, noah, masinter, DanC

   Regrets
          HT, TimBL, Jonathan

   Chair
          noah

   Scribe
          masinter, noah

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Approval of minutes
         2. [5]Discussion on issue contentTypeOverride-24
         3. [6]discuss IRIs
         4. [7]Action item review
         5. [8]discuss ACTION-231 conneg
         6. [9]Discuss ACTION-261
         7. [10]ACTION-276 Take GeoPriv discussion with IETF forward in
            person in July (Larry)
         8. [11]Action Item Review
         9. [12]Overdue actions
        10. [13]ACTION-273
     * [14]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <masinter> ScribeNick: masinter

   Date: 13 August 2009

   AWOL: JK and Raman

   Noah: getting nervous about degree of focus in the last few weeks.
   Fair number of overdue action items. Pattern seems to be to take
   actions but still come out overdue. Haven't been a lot (except for
   masinter issues) that merits discussion. Concern about doing real
   work in FTF. No teleconference next week, but in two weeks. Jonathan
   will scribe we hope on 27th, otherwise HT.
   ... Reviewing agenda, most administrative stuff doesn't merit
   discussion.

Approval of minutes

   [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/08/06-minutes

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/08/06-minutes

   masinter: Minutes say suggestion was "meet with IETF in Anaheim",
   but "anaheim" was just one possibility

   minutes approved

Discussion on issue contentTypeOverride-24

   <scribe> ScribeNick: noah

   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Aug/0006.html

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Aug/0006.html

   masinter: Problem is that neither origin headers nor sniffing is in
   HTTPbis
   ... Not clear what progress is being made at IETF

   NM: What do you think TAG should do?

   masinter: Not sure. Seems W3C specs are doing things which should be
   in IETF specs, but they aren't being taken up there.

   DanC: Well, we formally split out some things so IETF could pick
   them up, now they seem to be taking those as out of scope.

   <DanC> [17]http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155

     [17] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155

   <masinter> DanC: not a deliverable for HTTPbis. There's an item in
   their issue list.

   DanC: My understanding is that the sniffing draft occasionally gets
   discussed on their email, but it's not a formal deliverable. The do
   have an issue, but not sure what scope or decision was. Now closed.
   Cites the draft.

   masinter: Separating administrative and technical. Admin: there are
   some cross org coordination issues. Technically: there is a proposal
   for a security mechanism...(digression into scope of discussion, is
   it sniffing-only or origin too?)
   ... Suggest I take an action to find out what's happening with
   sniffing, and report back.

   DanC: My understanding of coordination on HTTP is; we (W3C) can
   draft proposals, and they review and, we hope, adopt

   masinter: Saying it's not in scope doesn't mean work stops; it means
   need general IETF approval vs. only working-group level

   DanC: Interesting that you said "you can ask a working group for
   review"

   masinter: I think some of that happened. That's why I want an action
   to track down what happened.

   DanC: Hmm. Maybe reviews don't necessarily result in 1 bit answer?

   masinter: No.

   <masinter> Re: Update on issue 155 (Content Sniffing)

   <masinter> ... on ietf-http-wg@w3.org

   <masinter> ... issue was re-closed

   <masinter> The authors of the content-type sniffing draft asked for
   a change to HTTP

   <masinter> a change was made which the WG thought would address
   their request, althought not exactly what they wanted

   <masinter> which would allow ocntent-type sniffing to be processed

   <DanC> (I find a few messages with that subject, larry; give me the
   date?)

   <masinter> i'll put in links in minutes

   <DanC> this is part of that thread:
   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/thre
   ad.html#msg485

     [18] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/thread.html#msg485

   <masinter> email from mnot: " I made the proposed change (taking out
   that paragraph) with

   <masinter> ...
   [19]http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/663 "

     [19] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/663

   DanC: And the actual change is?

   masinter: I >think< the following got removed:
   ... Note that neither the interpretation of the data type of a
   message nor the behaviors caused by it are defined by HTTP; this
   ... potentially includes examination of the content to override any
   indicated type ("sniffing")"

   <masinter> I'm not sure though, will check and report

   <DanC> I'm pretty puzzled by "As it stands, sniffing is not
   prohibited" -- mnot 5 Aug
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0473
   .html

     [20] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0473.html

   <scribe> ACTION: Larry to investigate and report to TAG on IETF
   progress on sniffing features in HTTPbis

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-297 - Investigate and report to TAG on
   IETF progress on sniffing features in HTTPbis [on Larry masinter -
   due 2009-08-20].

   masinter: It just says what the messages imply: Content-type:
   image/gif means it's a gif; doesn't describe endpoint behavior
   ... When implementations disagree with specifications, do you make
   their behavior normative, or do you ...(Larry's phone is too
   noisy)....

   DanC: Disappointing to me. If I want to build a bug database with
   buggy XML (scribe presumes as something like text/plain), he can
   read the whole HTTP spec and not be warned it won't work.
   ... I'm reading here in MNot's 5 Aug message that sniffing is not
   prohibited.

   <DanC> (I meant buggy XML...)

   <masinter> i think this is an interesting general question about
   implementation behavior vs. normative specs

   <masinter> the data point is that HTTP-WG came up with a conclusion
   for a point of view that we should consider

   masinter: I wasn't proposing to solve general problem first. I noted
   HTTP group made a compromise: protocol is unchanged, but sniffing is
   OK anyway. Suggested we check whether we can learn from the
   compromise.

   <DanC> close action-297

   <trackbot> ACTION-297 Investigate and report to TAG on IETF progress
   on sniffing features in HTTPbis closed

discuss IRIs

   Goals:

   * Get a review from Larry of his informal discussions about IRIs at
   the recent IETF meeting. The specific concern is "around making sure
   that no host name containing a % or containing raw non-ascii is ever
   passed to a DNS resolver".

   Larry sent this email:
   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Aug/0008.html

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Aug/0008.html

   "I had several discussions about the IRI draft and a "bar bof"

   meeting, and I can give a quick update on the status and next

   steps. The concern is around making sure that no host name

   containing a % or containing raw non-ascii is ever passed to

   a DNS resolver.

   "

   masinter: We a had a meeting. Lots of people from application area,
   some from internationalization of domain names

   <masinter> The IDN working group did internationalized domain names

   <masinter> IDNA is focusing on how to bring this up to application
   layer.

   masinter: Problem is that method chosen by IDN for representing
   non-ASCII in Domain names is different from what's used for that
   purpose in IRIs

   <masinter> URIs use %XX hex encoding of UTF8

   <masinter> IRI to URI uses that

   masinter: DNS chose different algorithm.
   ... Concern is to make sure that %hex-encoded UTF-8 identifiers
   never wind up in DNS resolution requests.
   ... Even though such registrations seem to be disallowed, the
   protocol doesn't obviously prohibit them, causing both security and
   administrative concerns.
   ... One proposal is that IRI -> URI resolution change, but that
   seems not practical.

   <masinter> second set of issues are in HTML5 -> IRI document, some
   things got left out that i need to address one way or another.

   <masinter> see public-iri@w3.org mailing list for issues.

   DanC: Short version is: there are some technical issues you want to
   figure out how to address?

   masinter: Yes. Some progress has been made on the procedural issue,
   though. No pushback on putting the Web Address stuff in the IRI
   document. So, that's good.

   DanC: HTML5 group has a proposal to close pertinent issue because
   text has been moved. Makes me nervous.

   masinter: Issue needs to stay open in HTML5 until technical issues
   are resolved, IMO.

   <DanC> ACTION-265?

   <trackbot> ACTION-265 -- Dan Connolly to work with Larry, Henry to
   frame technical issues relating to the vairous overlapping specs.
   about URIs, IRIs and encoding on the wire -- due 2009-07-13 --
   PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/265

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/265

   <masinter> next step on IRI-everywhere will be to recommend W3C
   working groups use IRIs, not LEIRIs or Web Addresses.

   <masinter> date should be : wait until IRI document is published

   <DanC> . ACTION: Larry notify the TAG of the next IRI draft

   masinter: Suggest that when next version of IRI is published, the
   TAG review it.

   <scribe> ACTION: Larry notify the TAG of the next IRI draft

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-298 - Notify the TAG of the next IRI draft
   [on Larry masinter - due 2009-08-20].

   ACTION-298 Due 15 Sept

   <trackbot> ACTION-298 Notify the TAG of the next IRI draft due date
   now 15 Sept

   <DanC> close action-265

   <trackbot> ACTION-265 Work with Larry, Henry to frame technical
   issues relating to the vairous overlapping specs. about URIs, IRIs
   and encoding on the wire closed

Action item review

   <scribe> Pending actions:
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview

discuss ACTION-231 conneg

   Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\" stuff in HTTP spec?

   masinter: In Stockholm, Mark Nottingham first offered to do a draft,
   then suggested withdrawing plan for update. That's OK me.

   DanC: Why did we want to do this?

   masinter: Let me get pertinent section of document...

   <masinter>
   [24]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-07

     [24] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-07

   <masinter> ... Most HTTP responses include an entity which contains
   information for

   <masinter> interpretation by a human user. Naturally, it is
   desirable to supply

   <masinter> the user with the "best available" entity corresponding
   to the

   <masinter> request. Unfortunately for servers and caches, not all
   users have

   <masinter> the same preferences for what is "best," and not all user
   agents are

   <masinter> equally capable of rendering all entity types. For that
   reason, HTTP

   <masinter> has provisions for several mechanisms for "content
   negotiation" --

   <masinter> the process of selecting the best representation for a
   given response

   <masinter> when there are multiple representations available.

   NM: What here matters for this discussion?

   masinter: That was the original conception when conneg was
   introduced years ago. In practice, it's now used for lots of other
   things.
   ... Sometimes, for example, CSS media queries is used to select best
   rep. That's not in HTTP.
   ... We seem to be moving toward "HTTP is used for transporting
   content; if there's variability desired, the initial bit of content
   is used to make subsequent decision."

   DanC: We seem to have closed ISSUE-53, and perhaps have neglected to
   announce it.

   <masinter> In practice other things are used instead of Conneg for
   the purpose for which Conneg is used, while Conneg is used for other
   things

   <masinter> device characteristics, etc. etc.

   NM: Hmm, as chair am I supposed to announce closings.

   DanC: Ian did, not sure it's a formal responsibility. We used to
   wait for non-concurrences from community.
   ... I'm OK closing the action.

   NM: leaving this one pending review until Tim can take a look.

Discuss ACTION-261

   Followup with Mark Nottingham and Lisa D. regarding Adam Barth's
   sniffing draft.

   NM: You did that in Stockholm.

   close ACTION -261

   close ACTION-261

   <trackbot> ACTION-261 Followup with Mark Nottingham and Lisa D.
   regarding Adam Barth's sniffing draft closed

ACTION-276 Take GeoPriv discussion with IETF forward in person in July
(Larry)

   <masinter> reported in email

   <masinter>
   [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jul/0043.html

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jul/0043.html

   Message from Larry:
   [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jul/0043.html
   (member-only)

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jul/0043.html

   NM: Ashok, is this what you need?

   AM: Yes. Have they responded.
   ... Larry, you asked them to send comments, did they?

   masinter: Don't know.

   <masinter>
   [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Aug/0
   006.html

     [27] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Aug/0006.html

   NM: Note Dan took action last week ACTION-295

   Monitor geolocation response to IETF GEOPRIV comments on last call
   and report to the TAG

   masinter: There's a message from the IETF Chair dated 10 August as
   formal comment on the draft.

   [28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Aug/0
   006.html

     [28] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Aug/0006.html

   close ACTION-276

   <trackbot> ACTION-276 Take GeoPriv discussion with IETF forward in
   person in July closed

   masinter: Just looking at this. It's a formal request from the IETF
   chair to the W3C. Mailed to public geo location working group.

   <DanC> (IETF chair?! I heard there was something from the GEOPRIV WG
   chair...)

   NM: I think Dan can make sure the right things happen.

Action Item Review

   ACTION-289 Tell Tim about HTML Reading plan [trivial]

   To Noah

   NM: Talked to Amy

   close ACTION-289

   <trackbot> ACTION-289 Tell Tim about HTML Reading plan [trivial]
   closed

   Close ACTION-290

   <trackbot> ACTION-290 Write to Geolocation WG saying "we have
   concern that the spec does not say enough user privacy" closed

   <DanC> action-264?

   <trackbot> ACTION-264 -- Ashok Malhotra to draft agenda item for
   upcoming telcon discussion of geolocation and privacy -- due
   2009-08-04 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/264

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/264

Overdue actions

   ACTION-264

   Draft agenda item for upcoming telcon discussion of geolocation and
   privacy

   on Ashok

   NM: Overtaken

   AM: Yes

   <masinter>
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue

   [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue

   Close ACTION-2643

   <trackbot> Sorry... closing ACTION-2643 failed, please let sysreq
   know about it

   Close ACTION-264

   <trackbot> ACTION-264 Draft agenda item for upcoming telcon
   discussion of geolocation and privacy closed

   <masinter> action-273?

   <trackbot> ACTION-273 -- Ashok Malhotra to carry forward framing
   issues around Archicture of APIs, with help from JK and masinter --
   due 2009-08-11 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/273

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/273

ACTION-273

   Carry forward framing issues around Archicture of APIs, with help
   from JK and masinter

   NM: I would like to see progress

   <masinter> ScribeNick: masinter

   ashok: happening with API working group, expects progress next week

   nm: would like to get this framed up in time for Face to Face
   ... we've put a few issues on the table, what are the technical
   issues, is this something W3C should be doing ... would like a
   framing that would underlie discussion for the next several months

   Ashok: they would like a general 'hook' for privacy and security,
   and they're thinking as a general way of getting those facilities.
   ... and there is a 'widget' URI scheme they want us to look at
   ... haven't done the homework on this so far.

   nm: change due date?

   ashok: wants to leave it open

   nm: but it is overdue

   action-273 due august 25

   <trackbot> ACTION-273 Carry forward framing issues around Archicture
   of APIs, with help from JK and masinter due date now august 25

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask if we announced that the generic
   resources issue is closed

   <noah> ScribeNick: noah

   masinter: I was hoping for something concrete from Ashok, in the
   spirit of what I did for metadata, I.e framing the issues

   NM: Me too

   masinter: Are you unable or unwilling, Ashok

   AM: There are parts you are better at.

   NM: Please do the whole framing, calling on others where you need to

   masinter: Please give me an outline

   ACTION-273 Due 25 August

   <trackbot> ACTION-273 Carry forward framing issues around Archicture
   of APIs, with help from JK and masinter due date now 25 August

   <masinter> action 283 due 25 August

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 283

   <masinter> action-283 due 25 August

   <trackbot> ACTION-283 Update document on version identifiers w.r.t.
   Cambridge June discussion due date now 25 August

   <masinter> nm: please update actions so they're not all overdue

   <masinter> adjourn?

   NM: We are adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Larry notify the TAG of the next IRI draft
   [NEW] ACTION: Larry to investigate and report to TAG on IETF
   progress on sniffing features in HTTPbis

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([34]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/08/27 14:29:15 $

     [33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 14:32:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:15 GMT