Minutes W3C/IETF Telcon 17 Jun 2003

now available...

text copy follows...

   [1]W3C * [2]IETF * prev: [3]March 2003

      [1] http://www.w3.org/
      [2] http://www.ietf.org/
      [3] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-ietf-w3c.html

                     W3C/IETF Teleconference 17 June 2003


    1. [4]Admin: attendance
    2. [5]Admin: Mailing Lists
    3. [6]MIME type registration procedure
    4. [7]Names of W3C ietf-drafts
    5. [8]internationalization in protocol elements
    6. [9]URI maintenance team
    7. [10]next meeting (next IETF is November 9-14)

   postscript: in preparing the record, Connolly noticed that [11]Asking
   IANA to maintain tidy URIs was not carried forward from 13 March.

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-ietf-w3c.html#iana-uri


Administrative: Attendance

     * Tim Berners-Lee
     * Dan Connolly (chair, scribe)
     * Leslie Daigle
     * Martin Dürst
     * Ted Hardie
     * Michael Mealing
     * Joseph Reagle

Administrative: Mailing Lists

     ACTION Ned Freed: investigate private archiving for IETF hosted

    from [12]13 March

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-ietf-w3c.html#Administra

   Daigle reported that the IETF now has facilities for list archives of
   various sorts.

   ACTION Hardie: set up an http archive of w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org
   readable by the subscribers

MIME type registration procedure

     Ned Freed: try to last call [13]the document today and champion
     this issue at he upcoming Sunday IESG meeting.

     [13] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-00.txt

    from [14]13 March

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-ietf-w3c.html#mediatypes

   Freed reported via email...

     I received lots of feedback on draft-freed-mime-p4-01.txt at the
     last IETF, so much that it wasn't practical to proceed with a last
     call at that time. I subsequently worked my way through the various
     comments and released a new (-01) version that hopefully addresses
     all the issues.

     IETF policy is that ADs don't handle their own documents. As such,
     I asked Ted Hardie to review and last call the document.

     I therefore consider this action item done, with the ball now in
     Ted's court.

   Hardy confirmed that he's now the shepherding Area Director, and noted
   that the [15]status is "Publication Requested", and that it was headed
   for Best Current Practice (BCP) status, at which point it would be

     [15] https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=search_list&search_job_owner=0&search_group_acronym=&search_status_id=&search_cur_state=&sub_state_id=6&search_filename=freed-mime-p4&search_rfcnumber=&search_area_acronym=&search_button=SEARCH

   The [16]6 June draft is available.

     [16] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-01.txt

   Connolly asked Reagle what needed to happen before it was useful for
   his work on XENC. Reagle said he only needed for it to be effective
   policy; "BCP" versus standards-track was not critical for his use.

   Connolly asked Hardie to estimate when it would go to last call.
   Hardie agreed to provide an estimate by email, noting that it would
   most likely be after the July IETF meeting in Vienna. ACTION Hardie:
   estimate last call on draft-freed-mime-p4-*.

   Hardie noted that since it's an individual submission, last call would
   be 4 weeks, rather than 2 weeks as for working group documents.

     Ned Freed: refresh the status of the SMIL solicitation on the IESG

    from [17]13 March

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-ietf-w3c.html#mediatypes

   Hardie observed some progress on the [18]status of the [19]smil draft;
   records seem to indicate that another draft was due from the author
   (Hoschka) though noone present knew what needed to be fixed. ACTION
   Hardie: enquire with IESG members such as Harald about what's expected
   in a new smil draft, and whether the author has been notified.

     [18] https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=search_list&search_job_owner=0&search_group_acronym=&search_status_id=&search_cur_state=&sub_state_id=6&search_filename=smil&search_rfcnumber=&search_area_acronym=&search_button=SEARCH
     [19] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoschka-smil-media-type-11.txt

   Connolly noted, with appreciation, that the IETF datatracker now uses
   GET for its searches, so the results can, for example, be linked from
   this record.

Names of W3C ietf-drafts

     Alison Mankin: bring up this issue to the IESG for confirmation and
     report back to w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org, with possibility of asking
     Joseph Reagle to reflect this resolution in W3C Guidebook.

    from [20]13 March

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-ietf-w3c.html#names

   Daigle reported that discussion in the IESG raised some issues,
   including how the IETF would recongnie what was a W3C draft.

   Connolly suggested that the idea was more trouble than it was worth.
   The matter was dropped.

internationalization in protocol elements

     ACTION Martin Dürst: review the draft-iap-char-rep, and then
     coordinate with Ted Hardie and Leslie Daigle on next steps.

    from [21]13 March

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-ietf-w3c.html#iab-i18n

   Daigle reported on discussion beween Hardie, Dürst and herself in
   March. ACTION Daigle: update this forum on next steps

URI maintenance team

   Hardie reported on movement away from the "one-size-fits-all" style
   for IETF WGs. For new URI schemes, trying to clear the process and
   backlog for new URI schemes. A problem has been that even thought
   there is a [22]URI review forum, the process as it stands is that it
   comes in to the RDC editor as an individual submission, the editor
   turns it over to an IESG stuckee, who then replies with the suggested
   disposition. (publish, publish with note prepended, etc...). Often the
   stuckee turns to the URI review group.

     [22] https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/uri-review/current/maillist.html

   Problems have been: useful responses from URI review group have met
   with mixed responses from the original authors. The idea of a
   long-lived mainainance team might work better. The URI maintenance
   team would have responsibility to reach closure; It would have the
   same appeal systems as a WG.

   Connolly asked what motivates/pays the uri review team? Hardie
   responded that it fits into the process better as a WG - and this
   might justify people's time better.

   Connolly asked about candidates for chair. Hardie suggested perhaps
   Daigle, but Daigle was reluctant.

   Hardie noted the coordination challenges in this work; e.g. a "dns"
   URI scheme; it has undergone 5 draft revisions during review in
   uri-review and on the DNS extensions list (namedroppers).

   Connolly noted that in addition to those challenges, uri scheme
   designers are not very motivated to write Internet Draft
   specifications of their schemes in the first place; the schemes don't
   rely on the registry for operation, except in the case of a collision,
   which seems rare in practice. Connolly noted another "dns:" scheme in
   the implementation of the rebol programming language. Perhaps making
   an example of this collision would motivate scheme designers to
   register their schemes.

   Hardie noted with regret lack of progress on the vnd- branch of the
   URI tree. Ian King was the original author, but it got lost within the

   Hardie asked for confirmation that a URI scheme maintenance team
   wouldn't "tread on W3C's toes". Connolly and Berners-Lee confirmed;
   Berners-Lee explored the idea of an explicit liaison with the W3C TAG;
   Connolly suggested that as long as the idea was discussed in the W3C
   URI Coordination Group, the right connections would be established as
   a matter of course. ACTION Mealling: raise the "uri maintenance team"
   idea in the W3C URI CG.

   Hardie noted in passing the discussions in the [23]problem-statement
   forum, but suggested that shouldn't prevent this maintenance team from
   going forward. Others on the call expressed curiosity, but there
   wasn't time to explore the matter further.

     [23] http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/problem-charter.html

next meeting (next IETF is November 9-14)

   RESOLVED to meet next [24]Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 1:00:00 PM
   Boston time (1700Z) for up to 90 minutes. Daigle to prepare an agenda.
   Connolly to arrange teleconference and IRC facilities.

     [24] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=8&month=10&year=2003&hour=13&min=0&sec=0&p1=43

   In closing, Connolly re-iterated the process for review of records:
   Connolly sends a draft; after 7 day review, it goes public [to

    Dan Connolly, 17 Jun 2003
    $Revision: 1.5 $ of $Date: 2003/07/03 22:24:59 $

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 18:28:28 UTC