W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Minutes of TAG F2F 02 April 2012

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 20:38:49 +0100
Message-Id: <36CFE0AE-1414-443D-A0B9-7C35AB7A7BB6@jenitennison.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hi,

The draft minutes of Monday 2nd April 2012 TAG F2F are available at

  www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-minutes

and below.

Cheers,

Jeni

---

   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

              Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

02 Apr 2012

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/02-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Ashok_Malhotra, Dan_Appelquist, Jeni_Tennison,
          Larry_Masinter, Noah_Mendelsohn, Robin_Berjon,
          Tim_Berners-Lee, Yves_Lafon, Henry_Thompson,
          Jonathan_Rees

   Regrets

   Chair
          Noah Mendelsohn

   Scribe
          Larry

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene
         2. [6]httpRange14 - URI Documentation Discovery
         3. [7]part 1, use cases
         4. [8]Report on Paris IETF Meeting
         5. [9]Can publication of hyperlinks constitute copyright
            infringment?
         6. [10]Web Applications: Privacy by Design in APIs for
            Web Applications
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 02 April 2012

   <noah> [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda

Convene

   noah: agenda review
   ... couple of logistical announcements
   ... DanA will be joining us after lunch

   <scribe> scribe: Larry

   <scribe> scribenick: Larry

   noah: (reviewing agenda, visitor schedules)

httpRange14 - URI Documentation Discovery

   [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda#httpRange14

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda#httpRange14

   <scribe> chair: henry

   ht: I'll have a go at chairing, see how that goes
   ... plan: 45 minutes, trying to get a state of play review,
   want to hear what jar thinks we need to know. then spend 11-12
   slot seeing if we can identify a way forward
   ... my inclination is to not try to get to the resolution right
   away

   jar: Jeni and I spent two hours yesterday talking about the
   plan for this session, and came up with an outline for a
   sequence of events
   ... roughly 5 parts (maybe 6)
   ... part 1: use cases, of which there are 2-3
   ... part 2: two architectures
   ... part 3: categorization of approaches
   ... part 4: visualizing the two roads to go down.... "what
   would it be like to go in that direction"
   ... part 5: criteria for making decision
   ... part 6: actually making a decision

part 1, use cases

   jar: RDF spec from 1997, section 5, Examples
   ... http:/www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-971002/
   ... "RDF is a foundation for processing metadadta"
   ... this is the first of 2.5 use cases. What's going on here is
   you're making a database about bibliographic information, using
   sparkle or some other results
   ... RDF was motivated by PICS whichc was about rating, before
   powder

   ht: (want a sense of how jonathan is using the terminology)

   jar: this is the way i see this use case, as formulated, which
   i translated into a form that makes sense now
   ... "If I do a get, I will get something which has the
   properties)
   ... second use case:

   [14]http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-971002/

     [14] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-971002/

   <noah> I'm very surprised the assertion in the example is
   claimed to be about the representation. I had assumed the
   assertions were about the resource. e.g. If the assertion is
   "created-on-date", then I assume that's the resource, not the
   representation that was created. If I really need to talk about
   representations, then I should find a way to get URI for the
   (various) representation(s)

   jar points to

   <?namespace href="[15]http://docs.r.us.com/bibliography-info"
   as="bib"?>

     [15] http://docs.r.us.com/bibliography-info

   <?namespace href="[16]http://www.w3.org/schemas/rdf-schema"
   as="RDF"?>

     [16] http://www.w3.org/schemas/rdf-schema

   <RDF:serialization>

   <RDF:assertions href="[17]http://www.bar.com/some.doc">

     [17] http://www.bar.com/some.doc

   <bib:author href="#John_Smith"/>

   </RDF:assertions>

   </RDF:serialization>

   <RDF:resource id="John_Smith">

   <bib:name>John Smith</bib:name>

   <bib:email>john@smith.com</bib:email>

   <bib:phone>+1 (555) 123-4567</bib:phone>

   </RDF:resource>

   jar: the RDF:resource id="John_Smith" in the second use, is
   really about the person
   ... "URI-based structured data"
   ... expand on this: netflix use case, we have actors, films,
   separate files in some format, in each entity, there might be
   some application
   ... 3rd case is one i will talk about an demand, the use of a
   URL from Amazon to talk about a book

   ht: press on ...

   jar: I've been trying not to make this RDF specific
   ... About "two architectures": where we are now, for whatever
   we are, people are wanting to use hashless URIs for both use
   cases
   ... the relationship between the retrieval results
   ... that's my analysis ...? "the other one is description. The
   content you get back is different ..."
   ... I'm saying a fact about the two ways these fragments are
   meant to be used
   ... in the one case, the URIs are being used as forming a
   document web. In the other case, the content you get back is
   more of a "REST"...
   ... Tim's vision and Roy's vision are different

   ht: please be more specific

   jar: Roy's latest formulation is "the representation is a
   record of the state of the resource"

   noah: if a "hashless http refers to me" ?

   jar: in Tim's version, people don't have hashless URIs?

   <ht> "Relationship between the representation and the resource
   is arbitrary and application-dependent" Roy Fielding, as
   channelled by Jonathan Rees

   jar: "If we need to"
   ... i think it might be useful to go over the three definitions
   of the word 'representation'

   <ht> "The way I interpret Roy, a server could validly return a
   JPG image of [Noah] with a 200 in return for a GET of a URI
   alleged to identify Noah"

   <ht> [Above quote from JAR, I think]

   larry: *munch* (eating another spoon)
   ... I think "alleged" is a problem

   jar: I've found 15-20 definitions of 'representation', 3 of
   which are interesting
   ... Rep #1: TBL, 2616? email, the word representation, comes
   from content negotiation,

   "Encoding-format-desensitized methods and means for
   interchanging electronic document appearances." Patent no.,
   5,210,824, 1993 May 11 (filed Mar., 1989).

   (JAR reviews matrix on board)

   jar: Rep #2: REST, by Roy fielding, in thesis, 3 publications,
   and in HTTPbis
   ... the type of indentified resource is unconstrained
   ... this is similar to ordinary language use of the word
   'representation', "is a picture of noah a representation of
   noah, yes". Is a picture of jonathan a representation of
   jonathan
   ... "Definition of Reputation #3" by 'fiat' -- if the URI
   identifies something and you do a GET and you get some bits,
   then by definition, the represenation of the resource
   ... Yves is correct that Roy is working to correct the
   terminology to be consistent with Rep #2

   <JeniT> Definition in HTTPbis:
   [18]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-19
   #section-4

     [18] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-19#section-4

   <JeniT> "A resource representation is information that reflects
   the state of that resource, as observed at some point in the
   past (e.g., in a response to GET) or to be desired at some
   point in the future (e.g., in a PUT request)."

   jar: does "Information Resource" belong here. I don't
   understand, in roy's view, ways that we should not use the term
   "Information Resource" in this discussion

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask about assertions about
   resources vs. assertions about representations

   noah: let's say the triple says "was created on"
   ... and it's my thesis, does the assertion apply to the
   representation or the resource

   jar: my theory of resources in sense 1
   ... if you say "if you do a get, you'll come up with something
   that satisfies the metadata"
   ... it is my belief that there is an operational behavior
   ... the operational behavior is predictive

   <Zakim> Larry, you wanted to note that I think representation
   vs. resource is irrlevant

   <noah> ScribeNick: noah

   Larry: I am interested in a view where the distinction between
   representation is not interesting, therefore the definitions of
   the terms are unimportant. We don't need the words.

   jar: Right, we just need to talk about the relationship between
   the two.

   Larry: No, we don't want to use the words at all, therefore
   there's no issue of the relationship.
   ... I think it's possible to not talk about resources,
   representations, HTTP status codes, or what happens when you do
   a GET. I like that story.

   jar: Everything I'm talking about is empirical. I'm talking
   about these two framings, and related them to the use cases.

   Larry: I don't think the use cases are different.

   jar: Consider the Flickr use case: you have two things... a
   description, and what it describes...and they have different
   properties. Thus, you NEED to say which one you're talking
   about.

   Larry: No you don't.

   timbl: Why not.

   Larry: We're having a conversation. In the old days, using
   English or French. You had languages you both understood, with
   dictionaries like OED to refer to.
   ... We communicate because we use the same language, not the
   same dictionary.
   ... Then we invented the Web, on which we can not only exchange
   text, we can annotate text, and hyperlink it. We can now say
   this Moby Dick was written by Melville, and can hyperlink, and
   can give representaitons e.g. in different natural languages.

   <ht> "This book I read, it's called 'Moby Dick', it was written
   by Hermann Melville, it has a green cover" LM

   Larry: Then we can reference things like Wikipedia we kind of
   understand how to share and retrieve.
   ... But then we wanted more...to make it more formal with
   triples... e.g. to formally say things about a book, using URIs
   to make formal the objects being discussed, who wrote it, etc.
   ... That is more precise, yet ambiguity remains. Maybe you
   can't tell if I'm talking about the book or the Web page about
   the book.
   ... Maybe the triples weren't good enough, in not allowing us
   to distinguish things we care about.

   jar: In 1998, it was very clear in the RDF draft (some mumbling
   in the room as to whether everyone agrees)

   Larry: We invented RDF, rev'd it, and still have ambiguities,
   some of which make us uncomfortable. That's just the way it is.
   We can't, in my view, retrofit now. We have to live with the
   ambiguities. Specifically, we can't do it by now more precisely
   stating what a URI means.

   ht: Jumping in...Jonathan has said repeatedly that 1998 draft
   was clear, but I don't think it addresses Larry's concern. I
   think the example in the spec is clear.

   <Larry> we can't retrofit the definition of what a URI means in
   order to fix this possible ambiguity in RDF.

   ht: It's unclear whether the example in the 1998 draft is about
   Moby Dick or the Web page about MD

   Larry: Even if you think RDF has got metadata...the library of
   congress has Abraham Lincoln's glasses, the glasses themselves,
   in the catalog.

   jar: The description is in the catalog.

   Larry: Right, but the catalog entry is for the actual glasses.

   <Larry> ScribeNick: Larry

   jar: the RDF draft itself does not resolve this question, in
   that sense that Larry is right. It is my belief that certain
   people had this view #1 in mind, that if you do a GET you will
   get something that has the property
   ... one example is "automatic mashups", you do a query of
   documents... and you produce something that has one paragraph
   from each document
   ... second example: text mining, what do you point your
   database on?

   ht: i think you're right, they wanted (Guha and Tim Bray) to
   give web docs metadata

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say that JAR's way of defining
   'content of' is very good and to

   timbl: You (LM) said RDF had an ambiguity; there is no
   ambiguity, the triples aren't ambiguous
   ... RDF constrained the ways in which ....

   <JeniT> ScribeNick: JeniT

   timbl: RDF was completely clear: under my view, it's clear what
   the URIs refer to
   ... which is documents
   ... This constrained how you could use URIs, but it is not
   ambiguous

   <timbl> The RDF system had no inhereent ambiguity om the trips.
   It did decide to use URIs and HTTP, and in designing them into
   the system, it constrained them, so URIs adn HTTP were
   interpreted in a more cconstrined manner which produced a very
   nice very clean system, whcih was very useful. But it involved
   imiteing the way one talks about URIs and HTTP

   <timbl> compared to what was in REST.

   jar: there are applications where you need to know whether the
   bits are content rather than description
   ... for example, showing the first paragraph of all the
   documents that can be found
   ... and it needs to make sure that the paragraphs are content
   from the documents, not from descriptions of the documents

   ht: if I want the train schedule, to display the numbers, you
   have to pay attention to the response code...
   ... if it comes back as 404 then you know you don't want to
   display those numbers
   ... you need to know whether the bits are the document or about
   the document

   jar: you need to know whether the bits are the content

   timbl: the concept of a document is crucial
   ... it's like the content of a string

   <ht> jar: It's like 'quote' in LISP

   larry: this is a distinction that I think is impossible to make

   timbl: the URI of the content of Moby Dick and the URI of a
   review of Moby Dick are different

   larry: can we describe this in terms of communication,
   asserting things in English, then in markup, then in triples

   noah: maybe we are tripping over what may be distinguished and
   what's worth distinguishing
   ... a document rendered with different backgrounds on different
   ways
   ... these are two artefacts, roughly different representations

   larry: I'm not happy with "I have a document and I give it a
   URI"

   noah: I minted a URI by leasing a domain name etc etc

   larry: I'm not happy about 'minting' and 'owner'

   noah: two operations were done, two sets of bits came back
   ... there were two artefacts, and we can't say they're the same
   ... one had a blue background, one not
   ... whether we care about that is something else
   ... perhaps you're saying we don't care about that

   larry: RDF doesn't let me express things that I want to express

   timbl: I think originally said that the difference between
   description and content was not one we could make

   <Larry> not one we could make reliably

   ht: clarification of relationship between resource and
   representation under Roy's view

   jar: it cannot be predicted what the relationship is
   ... there are applications where the content/description
   relationship is essential for the application to work
   ... you need to be able to identify whether something is
   content or description

   larry: there may be applications that you want to build, that
   depend on that distinction, but I do not think you can make
   that distinction reliably

   ht: there are people who are building these applications,
   because they assume a uniform answer to the question
   ... if they own both ends, they can satisfy the uniform
   definition

   <Larry> so the applications are unreliable. maybe they're
   reliable enough for the applications to be useful anyway

   ht: own the server and the client
   ... so there's no possibility of disagreement

   <Larry> the web is unreliable -- we get 404 not found all the
   time, but the web is sitll useful

   timbl: the RDF folks have built systems where they own both
   ends, but they include things outside that space, and that's
   the problem

   <Larry> i think this really leads into persistence, that we
   want <A> <R> <B> to be mean the same thing for all time, but
   it's unreliable

   jar: we should be able to ground this in a discussion where
   there's an application that do want to be able to make that
   distinction

   larry: we have a system where all URIs are not cool, in 10,000
   years they will stop working

   jar: we can scope to something within the next 5 minutes
   ... so you're right, but we're willing to make bets

   larry: there are applications that want to make distinctions
   reliably, and can't, but that doesn't mean they can't be useful
   ... the web is not completely reliable, but it's still useful
   ... getting the first paragraph of the review of Moby Dick is
   still useful

   ht: let's move on to 'proposal's

   <Larry> ScribeNick: Larry

   ht: let's spend 15 minutes on the third item of the agenda

   jar: supposing that we want to make distinctions, let's look at
   the proposals
   ... what are the possible sources
   ... in this case, let's suppose you can determine one bit of
   information, "content" vs. "description", where can this come
   from?
   ... (1) it could be in the specification

   ht: that's the state we could have been in, if Dan & Tim could
   have enforced the hash convention

   jar: (2) it could be in the status code, headers, content ...
   it could be in the response
   ... or the information could come from the exchange in http
   ... (3) 3rd source: "the message", the use of the URI, the
   document in which the URI occurs
   ... (we're not talking about the merits of these)
   ... information could come from any of these places, or a
   combination of them

   ht: this story is situated in a context where you sent me a
   message that contains a URI

   noah: there are other contexts?

   ht: we're trying to reduce the uncertanty of a message

   noah: "There are situations where i might just find a URI" ?
   ... there might "I just saw a URI?"

   jar: categorization of approaches (1), (2) and (3), the
   architecture i attributed to tim that is very heavy on (1) that
   does also involve (3) in the language spec ....
   ... ... in the GET + 200 case of (2), 'retrieval', the way that
   i make this distinction, i'll look at "httpRange-14a" and then
   I've answered the question
   ... we could have another answer, "httpRange-14b"
   ... Roy believes HTTPbis can't answer this question
   ... "He cares not to discuss this"
   ... New taxonomy of change proposals
   ... "Fixed mode" proposals: 'the answer comes from source (1)"
   ... proposal httpRange-14Strengthened
   ... AlwaysDescription
   ... these are the two fixed answer ones
   ... "Variable Answer" proposal:

   <JeniT> ScribeNick: JeniT

   jar: 1. 'no agreement' / 'nuclear' option -- no statement about
   relationship between resource and representation
   ... 2. Mode determined from server response
   ... 2a. new header that always answer the question, which has
   to always be present in order to tell
   ... 2b. Mode sometimes implicit
   ... 2bi. by default content, header means that it's not content
   but description (TimBL proposal for Document: header)
   ... 2bii. by default not content, header/message says it's
   content
   ... 2c. Mode determined at point of use
   ... you can't tell from the HTTP exchange at all
   ... only from the use of the URI

   ht: these could fall into two categories in the same way as 2b,
   different defaults

   jar: 2d. Mode determined from the request (eg MGET, Want-Other)

   timbl: I don't see how 2c works
   ... how does the server know what to give back?

   jar: the application will interpret whatever response the
   server provides back in the way indicated by the context in
   which it got the URI

   ht: handing chair back to noah

   noah: we have some unscheduled time

   <ht> [My 'want-other' proposal about a request header is here:
   [19]http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/wantOther.html]

     [19] http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/wantOther.html

   ht: I would like 1-1.5 hours

   <scribe> ScribeNick: Larry

   Larry: would like to minimize the amount of time on this
   subject

   <ht> The want-other document has a potentially useful input to
   the role-playing discussion

   timbl: this has taken up a huge amount of mailing list... would
   like to make progress in f2f

   JeniT: I think we can make some progress at this F2F

   ht: I think the "role-playing", the next step wants to be "What
   life would be like in the major categories" ?

   henry put a pointer that has an analysis by cases

   <ht> I.e. an analysis by cases of what happens wrt server vs.
   client uptake

   noah: we'll spend a significant amount of time on this... jeni
   made the case... we pay a lot to swap in and out

   <JeniT> ScribeNick: JeniT

   <Larry> my criteria: (1) persistence... meaning should persist
   independent of what happens in DNS

   <Larry> (2) URI equivalence ... how to decide on whether URIs
   are the same

   <Larry> (3) reading on registries, registered values, vs. using
   URIs in protocols

   <Larry> (4) play without using 'owner', 'mint',...

   <Larry> (5) read on MIME, ...

   <Larry> (6) doesn't rely on 'resource/representation',
   'defining what a resource is or whether two resources are the
   same',

   larry: A story without talking about owners
   ... it should work for all URIs, not just HTTP
   ... without a distinction between information resource or
   non-information resource
   ... RDF has to be taken as a context, and there are other
   languages that might have different answers
   ... like to talk about persistence, which is part of not
   talking about HTTP
   ... something where there's no timeout
   ... something that someone can put in a book

   jar: a story in which timeout is not implicit

   timbl: I suggest that's out of scope

   larry: I'm saying what's important to me
   ... it's important that it works in archives
   ... I'd like it to talk about equivalence of URIs, but not
   equivalence of resource
   ... we don't have a language for naming resources aside from
   URIs
   ... we can compare code points in URIs
   ... but not resources
   ... We had some other related findings around URIs and
   registeries

   jar: what's the criterion that comes from registeries?

   larry: the discussion about URIs is more appropriate around
   URNs
   ... where there is an owner
   ... URNs have a story where there are naming things, and
   documentation and owners
   ... but that's the only naming scheme that has that property
   ... no one gets to say what HTTP URIs mean other than the
   implicit meaning

   jar: so the criterion is that it should touch on the
   relationship to registeries?

   larry: touch on the relationship between these things
   ... I laid out a story around talking in English, then markup
   languages, then triples

   <noah> Whiteboard photos for inclusion in agenda:

   <noah>
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/httpRange14Board2_1000px
   .jpg

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/httpRange14Board2_1000px.jpg

   larry: whatever proposal we accept should be cast into why we
   care about this as a way of enhancing communication

   <noah> Closeup of small print on upper right:
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/httpRange14Board2Closeup
   .jpg

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/httpRange14Board2Closeup.jpg

   larry: with the communication being enhanced, so that it's not
   just talking about philosophy
   ... I'm looking for a use case where adopting a solution helps
   ... persistence is the one that's hardest, because no one is
   talking about it and I think it's important

   noah: I have a couple of evaluation criteria too
   ... there are constraints and good practices in Architecture of
   the WWW and in our findings
   ... eg don't use one URI to identify two different things
   ... that interactions in HTTP should be self-describing
   ... if we have a solution that involves HTTP interactions, we
   should make sure they are consistent

   <Larry> "should work for all URIs, not just HTTP ones, should
   work for mailto:, data:, ftp:, file:, ..."

   jar: the criteria for the story is different from criteria for
   the solution

   noah: apply the criteria at the appropriate point

   ashok: I'm nervous about adding lots of equations
   ... work on some criteria and then worry about the others

   ht: I want a solution that we think is going to change
   behaviour
   ... there are two outcomes that are plausible
   ... one is that we figure out that the current state of play is
   OK
   ... the other is that we adopt a new position
   ... if we're going to do that, we had better have a vision
   about how we get behaviour to change to go there
   ... we can't just say what the Right Answer is and then say
   we're done

   timbl: my criteria is that the specific cases that got us into
   this discussion should be addressed
   ... eg 303s, OGP, Flickr should be addressed specifically
   ... add Dublin Core as a use case
   ... and an answer where we're confident that if they need to
   change, we can get them to change
   ... it must work for Dublin Core and FOAF and RDFS
   ... ie hash-oriented vocabularies must continue to work

   noah: at what point is it worth identifying one or two
   solutions might be promising, based on intuition
   ... we can ask about whether those hold up
   ... then at the end we can look at the other proposals

Report on Paris IETF Meeting

   [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda#IETFParis

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda#IETFParis

   Yves: about HTTP/2.0

   <Larry>
   [23]http://www.mnot.net/blog/2012/03/31/whats_next_for_http

     [23] http://www.mnot.net/blog/2012/03/31/whats_next_for_http

   Yves: we had representations about 1. SPDY

   <Larry>
   [24]http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/83/slides/slides-83-httpbis-4.
   pdf

     [24] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/83/slides/slides-83-httpbis-4.pdf

   Yves: 2. from Willy Tarreau, whose view came from an
   intermediary point of view, so included info from Squid
   ... 3. Waka from Roy Fielding
   ... 4. Microsoft S+M
   ... the goal now is to get more concrete proposals on the
   mailing list for evaluation before the next IETF meeting in
   July in Vancouver

   <Larry> pointers are in mnot's blog

   Yves: either one document to use as a basis, or two to be
   compared, one which will fail
   ... most of the proposals are for multiplexing at the
   application level

   noah: SPDY is like that?

   yves: yes
   ... layer 7
   ... the main discussion about SPDY is about the use of TLS or
   not
   ... on the mailing list, though that wasn't so evident in the
   meeting

   <noah> noah: right, so not e.g. the Google Maps application,
   but rather the Application layer of the network stack

   yves: there was one comment about authentication methods
   ... the goal would be to completely cover HTTP/1.1 but be able
   to do extra things

   jar: is there an example of something you would be able to do
   in the new protocol?

   yves: eg a new method of authentication

   larry: eg Waka includes examples of a single request naming
   several targets (MGET)
   ... that would be a new feature or an optimisation
   ... what I was interested in is that SPDY is slower for some
   sites
   ... it requires some optimisation/prioritisation in the client
   to be used effectively
   ... eg high priority for the first part of the document, low
   for the rest, so you get image headers quickly
   ... it's about performance/reliability/security
   ... and latency
   ... so the features are oriented around that
   ... earlier, I sent out a list of IETF meetings of interest, so
   I can go through that list

   <Larry> APPSAWG - "Applications Area Working Group WG", and
   APPAREA (Applications area) Most things of interest to W3C are
   in the "applications" area The meeting reviews topics of
   interest, new BOFs, as well as ongoing documents
   [25]http://tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/

     [25] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/

   larry: I talked with Thomas and Mark about IETF/W3C
   dependencies and how to reduce them
   ... normative references in W3C specs to IETF specs in progress
   ... Apps Area WG meeting
   ... Ned Freed's document on updating MIME registration
   guidelines
   ... new draft just out, soon to be last call
   ... if we want anything to change about MIME type registration,
   we need to get it into this document

   yves: we already said something about fragments

   larry: yes, but we should make sure that it's saying what we
   want it to say

   noah: what are the timing limits?

   larry: I don't know, but soon

   yves: I looked at a recent version, and it looked ok

   noah: it seems like this is something the TAG should look at
   ... does anyone else want to sign up to double check?

   ht: I will try to find the time, to see if the mime type to URI
   conversion is universal and reliable
   ... it's IANA that manage the registry
   ... you can get something back for some of them but not all of
   them

   larry: I suggest we schedule a phone conference to review this
   document

   noah: I need the URI to the document

   <Larry> [26]http://tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/

     [26] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/

   <ht>
   [27]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
   gs-04

     [27] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04

   larry: the media type reg document is the one we need to review
   ... there is another one we need to talk about which is
   deprecating X-

   timbl: is it good?

   ht: yes
   ... it does say that using prefixes generally is a mistake, for
   reasons noah will love

   <noah> ACTION: Noah to schedule (soon) TAG telcon review of
   [28]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
   gs-04 - Due 2012-04-17 [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-minutes#action01]

     [28] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-680 - schedule (soon) TAG telcon
   review of
   [30]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
   gs-04 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-04-17].

     [30] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04

   larry: it's an interesting document that's worth reading

   <Larry>
   [31]http://tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash/

     [31] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash/

   larry: I like this document, but I think TAG members should
   read it

   <ht> ACTION: Henry S to prepare TAG discussion of
   [32]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
   gs-04 - Due 2012-04-17 [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-minutes#action02]

     [32] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-681 - S to prepare TAG discussion of
   [34]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
   gs-04 [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-04-17].

     [34] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04

   noah: should these be reviewed together?

   <timbl> "Deprecating the X- Prefix and Similar Constructs in
   Application Protocols"

   larry: they are independent, and the X- document may not
   require TAG discussion, though I recommend reading it

   <timbl> and Similar Constructs

   Larry: Not convinced we need telcon discussion of x-prefix, but
   TAG should review.

   noah: OK, I'll only schedule x-dash if asked.

   robin: should this be brought to general attention within W3C?
   ... should it be sent to the Chairs list for broader review?

   larry: yes, that would be good
   ... there's another document which was discussed

   <Larry>
   [35]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-appsawg-happian
   a-00

     [35] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-appsawg-happiana-00

   <noah> Who's going to send it to chairs' list? I suggest Larry
   as he has most context, but could do it if that helps for some
   reason.

   larry: being prepared to be accepted by the Apps Area WG
   ... talking about the process around getting things into
   registeries
   ... based on the happiana effort
   ... that document is even more important for Chairs at W3C
   ... that's it for the AppAreaWG meeting
   ... on to WebSecWG
   ... mainly working on strict transport security & TLS
   ... also an issue around the mime sniffing document, which has
   expired
   ... the security problem could be addressed by giving sniff
   content a different origin
   ... if you have overridden the mime type, then you have given
   it a different origin
   ... this would address the cross-origin problems that arise
   from sniffing
   ... and I have not seen counter examples
   ... it was discussed and dismissed because "browsers won't do
   it"
   ... but browsers don't do what's being said anyway
   ... why not have a different fantasy
   ... email clients do sniffing all the time
   ... the Web Security Handbook talks about sniffing
   ... just like we have URIs in different contexts, does sniffing
   happen differently in different contexts
   ... meant to go to URNbis
   ... WG revising URN document
   ... the TAG has expressed opinions about URNs, and I wish I had
   gone
   ... we should review their documents

   jar: I think Julian has been paying attention to what they're
   doing

   larry: my opinion has changed about them
   ... it may have been a design goal to have something persistent
   ... in fact it is not about persistent, but about ownership
   ... there's no owner of an HTTP URI, but there is one about
   URNs
   ... Technical Plenary on browser security
   ... HTTP 1.1 is reaching closure

   yves: there's currently discussion about folding back documents
   together, adding a Part 0 so it's easier to find stuff
   ... merging Parts 1-3
   ... not sure about Part 0
   ... currently Part 4-7 are in IETF last call
   ... everything else should be in last call from the last draft

   larry: these are core documents, and the TAG should review them

   yves: most particularly Parts 1-3, the others are extensions

   jar: Part 2 is pretty important

   yves: wait for next draft for review

   noah: we often say we should review things, but we don't get
   people's attention to review them
   ... perhaps an email that points to particular things

   jar: I could point to the parts I've been paying attention to

   <noah> ACTION: Jonathan to suggest to TAG sections of HTTPbis
   specification that TAG should review - Due 2012-04-17 [recorded
   in [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-minutes#action03]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-682 - suggest to TAG sections of
   HTTPbis specification that TAG should review [on Jonathan Rees
   - due 2012-04-17].

   yves: Dom should be able to report on RTC web

   <jrees_> Note to minutes editor: Please add link
   [37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Apr/000
   3.html at end of previous topic (that's the emacs buffer that
   was projected)

     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Apr/0003.html

   yves: it was also about security

   larry: security is what makes most protocol design hard
   ... because you can't just optimise for performance and
   reliability
   ... you have to design against hostile players

   ht: what's HyBi doing?

   yves: it's WebSockets
   ... not the API, the protocol

   larry: the relationship between IETF and W3C work in many of
   these areas is that W3C focuses on API in JS on how you invoke
   it, and IETF on what goes on the wire

   noah: I had missed these were the two sides of the same coin

   larry: I don't know what the status is
   ... the TAG should have a review or invite someone to come and
   talk to us about it
   ... where we don't have the impetus to review it ourselves, we
   should get someone in

   ht: this is close to home because it's getting integrated into
   HTML
   ... we have to be sure this isn't going to change the
   architecture of browsing over the next 5 years

   larry: I think we should look for someone to come and present
   to us

   noah: any suggestions about who?

   yves: Thomas is watching this

   larry: we might ask Thomas to recommend someone
   ... there was a BOF, where I gave a presentation, to consider
   the document format of RFCs

   <noah> ACTION: Yves to figure out who might be a good choice to
   present Hybi (and as appropriate WebSocket protocols) to the
   TAG [recorded in
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-minutes#action04]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-683 - Figure out who might be a good
   choice to present Hybi (and as appropriate WebSocket protocols)
   to the TAG [on Yves Lafon - due 2012-04-09].

   larry: the driving use case is documents that need non-ASCII
   characters
   ... to show encoding
   ... IETF does allow alternative presentations in PostScript and
   PDF
   ... Martin Durst submitted a document on internationalisation
   of mailto URIs
   ... where the PDF version has examples that are in Unicode
   ... running a pre-processor on the XML so that you can have an
   HTML version with Unicode, and a text version in ASCII
   ... the IRI WG
   ... again, planning on last calling IRI documents before next
   IETF meeting

   ht: please could you tell me when the XML Core WG should look
   at those

   larry: there are four documents:
   ... guidelines & process for registering schemes
   ... takes 3987 which used to be one document, and split out
   section on comparison and bi-directional IRIs
   ... the comparison document needs work, because it's a security
   document to avoid spoofing
   ... it can't be a ladder
   ... my take is IRI everywhere is not the right answer
   ... that there are some contexts where you will want URIs

   Adjourn for lunch

   <robin> ScribeNick: robin

Can publication of hyperlinks constitute copyright infringment?

   <ht>
   [39]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/02/email-web-monit
   oring-powers-privacy

     [39] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/02/email-web-monitoring-powers-privacy

   noah: worth reviewing the goals of this work

   <JeniT>
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PublishingLinking-2011-
   12-27.html

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PublishingLinking-2011-12-27.html

   [NM reads from the product page]

   jar: who wrote that, it's really good?

   noah: we did it together
   ... we can always change these goals, but we should do so
   consciously

   <JeniT>
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PublishingLinking.html

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PublishingLinking.html

   noah: we claimed PR in 2012-06, that seems tight

   <JeniT> dated version:
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PublishingLinking-2012-
   01-08.html

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PublishingLinking-2012-01-08.html

   noah: DKA, are you avaialble for more work on this?

   DKA: not in an official capacity, but I will help

   ashok: how do we make sure it is valuable to policymakers

   noah: I don't know, trying to get us in a mindset where we try
   to make it useful to them
   ... we can try, and if it fails learn from our errors

   ashok: how about asking them earlier if it helps

   noah: not sure we want to debate this now

   Larry: I think it would be useful after reviewing the draft to
   look into administrative next steps
   ... e.g. forming a CG around this

   <JeniT>
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb
   -2012-01-04.html

     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2012-01-04.html

   noah: review the draft
   ... aiming for FPWD

   JeniT: my aim for this session is to get agreement on
   publication
   ... what I'd really like to do is focus on points that people
   feel strongly should prevent it from FPWD
   ... rather than editorials

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say that JAR's way of defining
   'content of' is very good and to

   JeniT: editorials should be sent by email
   ... is there anything that people want to say fisrt off?

   Larry: this is a marvellous piece of hard work, my only
   concerns are about positioning and how we move forward with
   this

   ashok: me too

   Larry: no matter how much we polish it, we will get feedback
   and divergent comments

   JeniT: but the only way to get those is to put this out there

   Larry: yes, but I would like to encourage their participation
   actively
   ... (in SotD)

   [JT goes through section by section]

   JeniT: Abstract

   timbl: this isn't an abstract at all

   jar: matching with goals, does more than set definitions for
   terms
   ... try to match the abstract with the goals from the product
   page which were really good

   Larry: the product page could be the abstract

   noah: extract some of it at least

   Larry: not an academic abstract, treat it like an ad for why
   people should read it

   ashok: it mentions issues that were raised to the TAG - were
   they really raised to the TAG?

   Larry: I'd get rid of the bit about legal issues

   JeniT: OK
   ... we'll rephrase that last paragraph

   DKA: pull it out, highlight that in introduction

   noah: can be very picky, but don't want to drag the group down
   ... but since we're writing for a community of lawyers we
   should be ruthless about drawing clear distinctions
   ... do people agree that that level of care is required?

   <Larry> I think we should indicate that we need to be ruthless,
   but not before we publish FPWD

   noah: concerned that this could be used in court

   jar: there's a tension between explaining words used in our
   community versus words defined by this document

   <Larry> explain words used in the community, as well as
   defining specific terms which could be used more precisely

   jar: if the goal is former, then entries need citations (though
   probably good as a FPWD)
   ... different goals: being clear, and explaining usage

   noah: users versus user agent, not clear

   <Larry> I think we have to do both

   jar: careful definition of UA in document, different from usage
   in some places

   JeniT: different places that define these things are
   conflicting

   jar: agree, but hard to resolve to tension

   Larry: the document may have to do both
   ... explain how terms are used in the community, and where
   there are contradictions come up with a new definition and
   recommend caution in future

   <Zakim> Larry, you wanted to argue for doing both

   noah: usually in the community UA == browser
   ... but here the definition is different because it's anything
   that accesses web content

   JeniT: what I'm taking away is to go through that set of terms,
   find citations/existing uses, and discuss the multiple
   existing/confliction terms then make sure the document is
   consistent

   noah: be precise where we can be, and if it's inappropriate
   signal it
   ... UA is an example of this

   timbl: for the TAG in general, the idea of UA is really
   important
   ... for me, a UA is a piece of software that represents me
   ... when you put User-Agent, you're representing someone else

   <Larry> unfortunately, "User Agent" is also used for
   identification of the HTTP client, even when it isn't working
   on behalf of any particular user.... a spider or web crawler
   has a "User-Agent" string. It was an error to name this "User
   Agent" in HTTP

   Larry: the problem is that User-Agent header is used to
   identify the web client rather than a UA

   noah: explain the different uses in technical community, and
   say which one is used here

   Larry: in most cases there isn't a problem, but for legal cases
   it may matter

   JeniT: arguably spiders are acting on behalf of someone

   Larry: but there's no identifiable user

   <timbl> Many subsystems with thin the web, like proxies and
   archives, are automated and incapable of exercising moral
   judgement, and requiring them to would be impossibly onerous.

   JeniT: moving on to Introduction

   <timbl> ^ attemtp to capture the best practuces in a scentence
   for the abstract

   <Larry> well, or at least for identification of whether there
   is a single responsible person for whose benefit the agent is
   operating

   timbl: Abstract is very good compared to most abstracts out
   there

   <noah> 1.0 Introduction:

   <noah> I suggest chg/The page itself may cause/logic encoded
   with the page may cause/

   noah: reason is, we in the community understand what it means
   when we say "the page cause a retrieval", but that notion would
   seem bizarre to people outside
   ... hence the use of "logic", which is easier to explain

   jar: the notion of agency is central, because this is legal -
   who causes something to happen?

   <noah> Well, it's really that, in the real world, pages don

   ashok: yes

   <noah> don't caus things to happen.

   ashok: have you looked at the legal interpretation of agency,
   there's a whole bunch of stuff there

   <noah> 2nd paragraph.

   jar: not sure it's relevant here, might be useful in writing
   the document, but not necessary to capture it directly
   ... good thing to put on the TODO list, but no need to prevent
   FPWD

   ashok: yeah

   <noah> Suggest chg/Proxy servers and services that combine and
   repackage data from other sources may also retain copies of
   this material, due to the user's original request for the
   page./Proxy servers and services that combine and repackage
   data from other sources may also retain copies of this
   material/ (I.e. delete phrase at end)

   <noah> Reason: proxy servers wind up holding onto things for
   lots of reasons.

   timbl: agency makes my rant stronger about UAs acting on behalf
   of users

   <noah> 3rd para:

   <noah> Still other services on the web, such as search engines
   and archives, make copies of content as a matter of course

   jar: "intents and conditions...." don't use passive -- this is
   not editorial because agency matter

   <noah> Suggest after "matter of course": in part to facilitate
   the indexing necessary to their operation, and in part to
   enable presentation of search results"

   <noah> Suggest delete: (as it enables the content to be found
   more easily)

   DKA: the problem is that if you load these paragraphs with
   contextual clarification then it starts to get quite heavy

   jar: use your judgement

   noah: legal community have an extraordinary capability for
   this, clarity is important

   JeniT: already talked about tightening up terminology -- so we
   can skip over that section

   <timbl> "For instance, one standard set of terms and conditions
   includes" -- reference?

   noah: "not taking into account this complexity" -- is this a
   bad thing?

   JeniT: yes, this is an example of trouble
   ... with "distribute", the problem is transfer of ownership
   because there is no transfer

   noah: would be useful to clarify this below the box

   ht: the Guardian has this profile thing where they put
   footnotes
   ... you could use little anchors to highlight or signal
   problems in the text
   ... this is a great way to show where the problems are, to make
   people realise that standard boilerplate is full of gotchas

   noah: might be worth picking the problem apart

   JeniT: would you say that throughout the entire background, it
   would expand it

   ht: I was thinking mostly about the box examples

   jar: might be nice to have a couple sentences after each
   example to explain what is an example about it

   Larry: can you use a different style for examples?

   RB: you can use class=example

   noah: this is fine, we can refine style

   JeniT: used blockquote to indicate them

   timbl: when you quote gsip.com, is it possible to use a copy of
   their T&C since it may not be stable

   <noah> Propose after box on scraping: "Yet, the automated
   agents on which the Web depends are incapable of reliably
   understanding such written licenses."

   jar: you can't even mention aa.com, so you couldn't cite the
   source properly

   noah: paragraph that says "limits placed on use of a
   website"... suggest that after that, you put [pasted above in
   IRC]
   ... you don't want to fix this, NLP is not an option
   ... explain why deep link paragraph is a problem

   JeniT: similar to previous comment

   noah: happy to skip if you feel you've got that for all
   instances
   ... the SHOULD not be misleading part  something about the
   different between SHOULD and MUST ought to be clarified

   jar: this is legal language

   noah: right, which may be different from RFC2119

   jar: should we include reference to 2119 in terminology?
   ... I don't think it's implied that everything in the box is
   bad

   noah: it's fine if it's clear that these are just examples of
   things we need to talk about
   ... wonder if scope should move up, to establish expectations?

   JeniT: Publishing section
   ... 3.1 Hosting

   noah: paragraph1 too strong, trying to say it's not a proxy
   ... but is confusing

   timbl: what do you mean by that?

   JeniT: it's not a copy of something that's being hosted
   somewhere else
   ... trying to separate out the case where this is the original
   content

   noah: if we have a photograph, hosted on her website
   ... I want to copy it (with permission); now we're both hosting
   it
   ... but with your definition I'm not

   JeniT: here we really want to talk about the original, not the
   copy

   timbl: I disagree, if you set up software on your server you're
   serving pre-existing content, not the original but you're still
   hosting it

   jar: delete the notion of "original"

   <noah> Section 3.1, suggest:

   ht: the two cases I am concerned with are those in which jailed
   infringer is said to "just link" to content

   JeniT: he was embedding it

   <noah> chg/does not necessarily mean that the organisation that
   owns and maintains the server has an awareness of that data
   being present/does not necessarily mean that the organisation
   that owns and maintains the server has an awareness of the
   details or intended meaning of that data./

   <noah> Reason: surely it's aware of the bits.

   JeniT: but he was not hosting it

   ht: "just linking" conjures up the notion of clicking, a user
   action
   ... so we need to be clear that hosting here covers that case

   noah: my ISP knows what files I've put there

   ht: no they don't
   ... "know" is not a helpful word

   noah: they shouldn't be asked to find out if you have child
   pornography

   ht: they know a whole lot less than that

   timbl: two types of know 1) is are aware of it as a matter of
   business, and 2) could find out if they paid someone to do it

   JeniT: has "specific" awareness?

   ht: ok

   <Larry> to what extent does provenance help ?

   [discussion about Wendy]

   noah: we should check the awareness issue with her

   <jrees> a to-do (after Dijkstra): check verbs to consider
   appropriateness of automata or documents being active agents,
   replace when appropriate with people or organization (e.g.
   "server being aware" to "server operator being aware")

   noah: would like this paragraph to dig deeper into the
   difference between knowing that data is there and knowing its
   nature

   JeniT: I understand the comments, will rephrase

   Larry: does the work on provenance help here?
   ... were you to record provenance, could you push
   responsibility back to originator

   jar: out of scope

   <noah> Noah notes we're run off the end of the parts he's read
   :-(

   Larry: why is it out of scope?

   jar/robin: because the technology is not there

   Larry: but to what extent *could* this be useful? Ask the
   provenance group?

   JeniT: maybe this could go into section 4 since it's about
   tecniques?

   <ht> "any specific awareness of that data being present, much
   less of its nature." would do it for me

   Larry: the TAG has more influence over W3C and its groups than
   web page hosters

   ht: there's a WG

   [meta discussion]

   JeniT: would like to come out of f2f with plan forward, not
   just publishing but also potential CG

   ht: would anyone object to FPWD at this stage, assuming Jeni
   takes comments into account?

   Larry: so long as the abstract is clearer on next steps I would
   be fine

   <Larry> my only concern is that the introduction makes it clear
   that we're open as to next steps

   JeniT: let me try to draft something and when we come back on
   Wednesday we can figure that out

   <Larry> clearer that 'next steps' are open

   noah: so no one likely objects to FPWD, how much do we need a
   longer session?

   [no objection]

   noah: anything other than actions?

   ashok: yes. the idea here is to influence the legal ecosystem.
   ... publishing it as a finding will not do that
   ... a Rec is not enough either
   ... it's not sufficient

   jar: you need publicity

   ashok: need to involve a broader community

   jar: won't be hard to sell, if the EFF learns about it it will
   be pushed

   ht: we will work to push this in public outlets

   noah: take an action long term on getting this on policy radar?

   Larry: we need to get to a position that people who have a
   stake in this game can voice their opinions, concerned about a
   TAG Rec

   <Larry> i'm concerned that we establish a next step process
   which actually engaged in discussing the content

   noah: so you're saying that some of the relevant people might
   not be comfortable with www-tag?

   Larry/ashok: yes

   noah: we'll talk on Wednesday about next steps

   Larry: want some feedback from relevant community, not sure how
   politically sensitive this is

   JeniT: please email further comments

   [break]

   noah: there will be a short session on this on Wednesday

   <Larry>
   [44]http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/D
   ynamicMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=6

     [44] http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/DynamicMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=6

   <JeniT> ScribeNick: JeniT

   noah: welcome to Robin

Web Applications: Privacy by Design in APIs for Web Applications

   noah: Product page is no longer a draft:
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization-2012-02
   -02.html
   ... review of
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/privacy-by-design-in-apis-20
   12-03-27

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization-2012-02-02.html
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/privacy-by-design-in-apis-2012-03-27

   robin: the feedback I've got is that the scope should be
   clarified
   ... so I will clarify it here
   ... the background is: we started working on Geo API
   ... this had privacy impacts
   ... in DAP we tried to take into account privacy from day one
   ... DAP started to think about how to do privacy in APIs
   ... one principle was API minimisation which led to DKA's draft
   ... now, that is only used in one API
   ... and not used in any other WG
   ... because we've moved on to other techniques
   ... so API minimisation needs to be set into a broader
   framework
   ... applicable to several groups who are defining APIs

   <Zakim> DKA, you wanted to ask robin to put the good parts back
   in

   DKA: that all sounds great
   ... *but* I think you've taken out bits that shouldn't have
   been taken out

   <DKA> [47]http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs551/saltzer/

     [47] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs551/saltzer/

   DKA: for instance, the original draft referenced Saltzer &
   Schroeder

   jar: in academia, this is the seminal classic on the subject

   <DKA> [48]http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0rp834wf

     [48] http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0rp834wf

   DKA: I understand why you might not want to bring those things
   up
   ... but I think it's important to do so, to mend the fence
   between the "privacy nuts" and the "script kiddies"
   ... there is really good information in the Dierdre Mulligan
   document
   ... and in the Saltzer document
   ... these are architectural principles that could be brought
   into the modern age

   <jrees> Official but paywalled location of S&S's classic:
   [49]http://dx.doi/org/10.1109/PROC.1975.9939

     [49] http://dx.doi/org/10.1109/PROC.1975.9939

   DKA: if the additional techniques that you think could be
   recommended enhance these
   ... then point that out
   ... point out that it helps to minimise the data that flows
   down the line
   ... I would like that work, which I think is good, to be
   brought through

   robin: I hear that the digestion process was too aggressive

   DKA: you know the latest stuff from DAP
   ... have the principles been tossed out?

   robin: mostly the document from which they come has not been
   updated in three years
   ... no one has read it in two years

   DKA: did they need to be updated?

   robin: I don't have a problem with the meaning of the
   principles, but the phrasing is probably off
   ... because the discussions have happened in other WGs
   ... and whenever the document has been cited, it's been ignored

   <DKA>
   [50]http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/privacy-reqs/#privacy-minimizati
   on

     [50] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/privacy-reqs/#privacy-minimization

   robin: so clearly it's not expressing things in a way that
   people are able to use it
   ... I'm happy to try to revive those principles more actively,
   but we need to rephrase them
   ... and I'm happy to do that
   ... I really tried to make this document a how-to manual for
   people busy writing specs
   ... so if I'm writing a spec, what do I need to read to get it
   right
   ... a short, checklist document
   ... I could re-organise the document so it serves both ends
   ... there's good architectural matter in the documents you
   cited
   ... so I will try to restructure to serve both documents, I
   think that's doable
   ... the fast reading for the spec writers, and then there's the
   background that can inform further thinking

   DKA: yes, and give the reasons for why the techniques work

   ashok: when we started this work, we really wanted to do
   something in the privacy area
   ... DKA found this well-scoped, well-defined area, which he
   wrote up
   ... and we hoped we could close on it quickly
   ... what I'm worried about is that the scope has been enlarged

   robin: slightly

   ashok: the parts that you've added are different
   ... they seem to be addressing a different problem with
   different solutions
   ... it looks like two ideas in this space, and I'm not sure
   whether we shouldn't break them up into two things

   jar: or there might be more, two is a funny number

   ashok: there's lots of issues in privacy, and we couldn't
   possibly handle them all

   robin: I don't want to boil the privacy ocean
   ... this document is scoped to what you can do about privacy
   inside a User Agent API
   ... it's not everything that could possibly do in this area
   ... but I think it does scope the problem in a way that is
   useful and applicable by people who are working in this space
   ... and it would be difficult to explain them in isolation

   ashok: so these are two directions that a user agent could take
   to help protect privacy

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about tradeoffs

   robin: not the user agent, but the design of the API to be run
   within the user agent

   noah: this is good work
   ... I think it's coherent in its scope
   ... I'm worried about it taking a long time, so focusing on the
   most important thing is a good idea
   ... you were saying that you wanted to do a quick guide for
   people building these things
   ... I think the TAG is at its best when it tries to tell
   stories that have longevity
   ... there are tradeoffs in the designs of the APIs
   ... I'd expect to see those tradeoffs set out, for example how
   testable the API is
   ... as it will have a bigger surface area

   <Larry> I don't think this is the right recommendation for
   "privacy by design". I'm not certain privacy-by-design if only
   because there isn't even a clear definition of the "privacy"
   design goal. I think this is consistent, I was worried about
   API minimization. Note GEOPRIV policy document
   [51]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-25 in
   25th revision

     [51] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-25

   noah: also talk about performance
   ... numbers of calls on the API
   ... draw out the core things
   ... to teach people to think deeply
   ... handy guides are great as well
   ... but I'd skew it more towards longevity

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to feel that a document of this sort
   should mention acceptable use tracking, and the concept of
   accptabl euse for a user aget and fo a community of agents of

   timbl: basically, I think it's a very useful document
   ... two separate things that occur to me
   ... talking about acceptable use
   ... that's what came out of a privacy workshop at MIT
   ... about capturing policy
   ... if you're a user agent, you don't want to do anything
   unexpected or damaging
   ... if I've decided to share something (eg a calendar entry)
   ... I select the two people to share it with
   ... my app might decide to send them emails
   ... it would be more reasonable for it to pop up the email so I
   can edit it
   ... it's different to add the name & address to a mailing list
   ... which leads to the idea that sometimes there's an implicit
   use
   ... you haven't captured what you said the data could be used
   for

   robin: looking at data usage is a fundamental question in
   privacy
   ... but it's hard to put that into API design
   ... but you'll get pushback from API designers
   ... and you'll get a fight, and it won't give progress

   jar: can we learn from that conflict?

   timbl: the related thing is between a trusted and an untrusted
   app
   ... web apps have to have total power, so they become trusted
   apps
   ... with an untrusted app, it's difficult to stop them from
   using the data for something different
   ... but then there's a trusted app talking to an untrusted app

   <Larry> note long discussion about whether SPDY's use of SSL
   offers a "promise of improved privacy"

   timbl: at that point it might be reasonable to have a
   negotiation about acceptable use
   ... because the trusted app gathers the data to do something
   specific

   robin: it would make sense, but we don't want to reinvent P3P
   ... DAP started looking at rulesets, a simplified version of
   P3P
   ... so a server could say what it wants to do with the data
   ... there's only one person in the privacy community who cares
   ... and no one in the browser space
   ... no one sees how to make that work in the broader sense
   ... the solution we've come up with at the moment is user
   mediation
   ... so web intents allow the initiation of communication
   between a server you trust and another that you don't
   ... or vice versa
   ... with the user in the middle saying ok about the transfers

   <Zakim> DKA, you wanted to comment on scope

   <Larry> main problem is that the design requirements for
   privacy, accessibility, performance, security from
   eavesdroppers, etc. can't be evaluated in isololation, so "X by
   design" in general is problematic

   DKA: I want to comment on scope and support Robin
   ... the original idea we had for privacy on the TAG was data
   minimisation as one targetted document as a series of things we
   could say
   ... I struggled to think about what that set should say
   ... your revised title and scope for this document really made
   sense to me
   ... how do you apply the 'privacy by design' idea to API design
   ... I have been thinking about this for a while, and this
   brought that back to me
   ... so I support that idea

   <Larry>
   [52]http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/privacydir/current/msg
   00053.html

     [52] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/privacydir/current/msg00053.html

   DKA: and I think the scope you've chosen is not boil the
   privacy ocean
   ... it's focusing on the API design, rather than all the
   potential issues that the TAG might hit on privacy

   robin: yes, and it stops where the IAB's work on privacy starts
   ... the IAB works up to the protocol layer
   ... and I hope their work will also address data usage

   larry: I'm really concerned about the TAG taking this on as a
   work item
   ... not because it's not important, but because we're
   optimising about a moving set of requirements
   ... we had a discussion about SPDY's use of SSL and found we
   didn't really have a common understanding of what privacy meant
   ... we're optimising against a goal that is not clearly
   understood in the industry
   ... the GeoPriv policy expression language has been repeatedly
   revised
   ... the subject is controversial enough and has a lot of
   different perspectives
   ... it seems unlikely that the TAG will converge on a finding
   that will fit with those
   ... especially as the IAB is moving about what it covers
   ... we have the area of variability around the tradeoffs
   ... and about the definition of privacy and the channels of
   communication
   ... and then there's the boundary between this and other TAG
   work
   ... the boundaries feel very fuzzy to me

   robin: you're worried about us broadening the scope?

   larry: we have a risk of overlapping and saying something
   contradictory, or leaving a gap between this work and others'
   work
   ... to shallow to the point it's not actionable, or too deep

   yves: what about the risk of saying nothing?

   larry: what's the boundary between the TAG and the privacy
   interest group etc
   ... there are other groups who are strongly chartered to work
   on this

   <Larry> wonders if we are really ready to negotiate a boundary
   with IAB

   larry: maybe we could come up with something that's shorter and
   more generic to encourage further work

   robin: we should talk about this in the session with Dom
   tomorrow
   ... I did meet up with Christine who is chairing the privacy
   interest group
   ... to discuss whether this is of interest to them, whether
   they should be doing it, whether the TAG should be doing it
   ... I've also been talking about it with the IAB as well

   <robin>
   [53]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privacy-considerations
   -02

     [53] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privacy-considerations-02

   robin: the reasonable consensus is that the IAB are working at
   the protocol level
   ... and I have the impression that they are happy with this

   noah: isn't there a lot of conceptual stuff that has to be
   sorted out across these

   robin: yes, so we've spoken about terminology
   ... which is still a moving target

   noah: do they include a threat matrix?

   robin: they start with an internet privacy threat model

   noah: that seems important to agree on, what the problem space
   is

   robin: yes, so their terminology is too much of a moving target
   to be reused, so that will need to be revisited at intervals
   ... as far as the Privacy IG goes, Christine felt that some
   joint work, either joint review or a joint TF
   ... to look at policy and that we could contribute
   technological view

   larry: I talked to people at the IETF meeting, to the IAB, to
   Wendy, to Thomas, and they didn't mention any of this
   ... for you to have a private discussion, that the others in
   the IAB and Privacy IG aren't aware of makes me worried

   robin: these discussions happened Thursday and Friday

   larry: we need to arrange discussions with the IAB in order to
   collaborate with them

   noah: getting colocated with the IAB has proven difficult
   ... we couldn't have a TAG meeting at the same time as the IETF
   meeting

   larry: my concern is about overlapping with other groups

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to urge disclaimer about sampling of
   techniques, it's not a comprehensive treatment

   jar: there's something that feels incomplete about the draft
   ... about how the scope is set
   ... if you just look at the title it looks like it's about all
   privacy issues
   ... what you've said today about the scope is really important,
   and should go into the introduction
   ... this is really just a sampling of things that have come up
   through the WG process

   timbl: you could have a related work section

   jar: there's a lot of interesting stuff in this space
   ... you should say that

   noah: say why we chose these bits now
   ... and what you should watch out for because we haven't
   covered it here
   ... stuff that hasn't been touched: different threat models,
   different capabilities

   jar: give space for the reader to realise that this is a
   sampling of what we know about right now
   ... it might end up being complete, but because it's an active
   area it's unlikely to be

   robin: this is like a BCP more than anything else

   noah: it might just be early
   ... a year ago people were talking about minimisation

   timbl: I like 'patterns in API design'
   ... and you could mention an anti-pattern, things that you
   didn't cover
   ... you're not saying they're best, that they could work for
   some people

   robin: the reason I didn't use 'pattern' was that several
   groups said it would tie it to 'design patterns'
   ... which is a little old-fashioned
   ... personally 'pattern' would have been something that I would
   have used, but some people are scared of using that word

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say we must be willing to say we
   don't have good answers on, e.g. policy

   robin: I'm happy to try using it

   <timbl> Alexander et al A Pattern Language

   <timbl> 1865

   noah: talking about policy, and that we don't have good answers
   ... there's a risk of telling the piece of the story we
   understand in isolation
   ... and perhaps without policy it doesn't matter
   ... need to explain which part of the problem these designs
   will solve

   <timbl>
   [54]http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Language-Buildings-Constructi
   on-Environmental/dp/0195019199/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1
   333378641&sr=1-1

     [54] http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Language-Buildings-Construction-Environmental/dp/0195019199/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333378641&sr=1-1

   noah: and what issues it doesn't solve
   ... if it can do it without talking about policy, I'm happy

   robin: I think that's part of explaining the scoping better

   noah: let's see if we can tell enough of the story with this
   ... we have another session on this tomorrow to review how this
   went with Dom
   ... and we can go over logistics at that point
   ... so let's wrap this up for now and come back on it tomorrow

   Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry S to prepare TAG discussion of
   [55]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
   gs-04 - Due 2012-04-17 [recorded in
   [56]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-minutes#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Jonathan to suggest to TAG sections of HTTPbis
   specification that TAG should review - Due 2012-04-17 [recorded
   in [57]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-minutes#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule (soon) TAG telcon review of
   [58]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
   gs-04 - Due 2012-04-17 [recorded in
   [59]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-minutes#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Yves to figure out who might be a good choice to
   present Hybi (and as appropriate WebSocket protocols) to the
   TAG [recorded in
   [60]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-minutes#action04]

     [55] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04
     [58] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [61]scribe.perl version
    1.136 ([62]CVS log)
    $Date: 2012/04/06 19:34:47 $

     [61] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [62] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 19:39:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:53 GMT