W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > February 2007

MInutes W3C/IETF teleconference 1 Nov 2006

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:11:17 +0000
To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
Message-Id: <1170799877.3104.30.camel@localhost>

Available at

Text version:

                              1 Nov 2006

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/11/01-ietf-irc


          Thomas Roessler, Lisa Dusseault, Leslie Daigle, Ted Hardie,
          Dan Connolly, Tim Berners-Lee, Philippe Le Hégaret, Mark




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Convene, review agenda
         2. [5]Plan next meeting
         3. [6]linking to BCP 47
         4. [7]HTTP - bringing it forward, patent terms, current
            situation with authors
         5. [8]update on the Web Security Context Working Group
         6. [9]media type registration; where is text/n3?
     * [10]Summary of Action Items

Convene, review agenda

Plan next meeting

   DanC: IETF turns. I nominate Ted?

   Ted: My term ends in March...

   Resolution: Ted will chair

   DanC: time and date?

   Tim: same time on a Wednesday before next IETF meeting?

     68th IETF - Prague, Czech Republic
     (March 18 - 23, 2007)

   DanC Proposed: 7 Mar 2007 3:30p Boston time?

   <timbl> [11]http://geneva.isoc.org/events/ ?

     [11] http://geneva.isoc.org/events/

   <knitbot> [12]http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php ?

     [12] http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php

   <timbl> [13]http://geneva.isoc.org/events/excel/eventreport.php

     [13] http://geneva.isoc.org/events/excel/eventreport.php

   ACTION: Leslie to review IETF planning calendars e.g.
   [15]http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php recorded in

     [14] http://geneva.isoc.org/events/excel/eventreport.php
     [15] http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php

   RESOLVED: to meet again 7 Mar 2007 3:30p Boston time, Ted Hardie to

   Ted: we will use Jabber and I will provide the bridge.

linking to BCP 47

   Philippe: BCP 47 should point to 4646 and 4647. Right now, it is a
   concatenation. Can we have a page instead?

   Leslie: the initial proposal is to provide headliner text clarifying
   it is a concatenation. The same issue arises for multi-document
   STDs, so a broader solution may be coming.

   Philippe: sounds good.


HTTP - bringing it forward, patent terms, current situation with

   Tim: Roy Fielding was concerned that a draft was published
   recapitulating his text, but without his name on it.

   Philippe: His name has been restored.

   <DanC> the author situation is resolved to my satsifaction. See
   [17]draft -01 of 23-Oct-2006

     [17] http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis/

   Tim: why Roy wasn't aware of this?

   <timbl> Bar-BOF at the last IETF ... no WG can be formed tll real
   BOF at IETF. meanwhile, individuals can publish suggestions

   Lisa: unofficial BOF for HTTP at the last IETF. There is a group to
   try to form a WG. Until they have an official BOF and are
   successful, they can't have a WG. We encouraged the individuals to
   put a new draft. It is not my intent to revise a new HTTP spec with
   a new number for the moment.

   Philippe: Tim, we're involved in this through Yves...

   Tim: Since HTTP is a critical part of the Web, W3C has concerns
   about the IPR situation applying to RFC 2616. Without having actual
   knowledge of a patent that would apply to HTTP 1.1, we're afraid
   that HTTP 1.1, as it currently stands or in a new revision, isn't be
   protected enough against patents out there, and this might come back
   and bites us later.

   Ted: the IETF mechanism to handle this is controlled by the WG's
   understanding of the need to limit new items included to those where
   the IPR situation has no known issues. In addition, if anyone has
   knowledge of an IPR issue against the RFC, they should do a
   disclosure and the WG can then act on it as necessary.

   Ted: very likely to have the BOF in March in Prague. it's under

update on the Web Security Context Working Group

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/

   Thomas: follow-up to the security workshop we held in March.

     14/15 November 2006,
     Initial face-to-face meeting, New York, USA.

   Thomas: around 20 participants in the WG. first f2f in NYC November
   15. if you think we're missing participants, let me know. there has
   been discussion around doing xml signature 1.1, to fix the c14n
   issue. some combinaison of IPR between W3C and IETF. which area
   director will be around to help on this? In particular security area

   Ted: i'm not standing for reappointment.

   Ted: security area director situation is unknown yet. Russ Housley
   agreed to stand for reappointment.

   <lisa> Sam is very interested in the topic anyway.

   Thomas: what happened to the follow-up from Montreal in DIX?

   Lisa: we got a request for a BOF on attribute exchange.

   <DanC> (er... I'm confused... I thought a DIX BOF did happen, and
   I've seen requirements drafts)

   Lisa: Attribute Exchange' as a standalone topic was not discussed on
   a mailing list, and no proposed charter, ie nothing to backup a BOF.
   Not ready to be brought to the IETF.

   <lisa> latest post on [19]http://blog.commerce.net/, [20]A Skeptic's
   View of Identity 2.0

     [19] http://blog.commerce.net/
     [20] http://www.commerce.net/blog/?post=/2006/10/171300.e56954b4f6347e897f954495eab16a88.html

   <timbl> [21][dix] DIX BOF Meeting Materials

     [21] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dix/current/msg00576.html

Attribute Exchange

   Lisa:In Houston there was a DIX BOF, then one merged Web
   authentication BOF combining two BoF proposals in Montreal. Then the
   guys who proposed the DIX BOF joined the OpenID effort so haven't
   pursued more BOFs or a WG on DIX — and the OpenID effort is
   currently not part of the IETF community. Right now, the OpenID guys
   are planning to go a long way without official involvement from IETF
   security experts.

   Lisa: To try to clarify what I was saying about the 'meta-request'
   for a BOF, the only BoF inquiry we received related to identity for
   San Diego was on the topic of *attribute* exchange. That is, the
   inquiry was about having a BoF to talk about a standard for
   exchanging attributes about identities — the absence of a standard
   for exchanging the identities themselves. It's not inconceivable to
   have an abstraction layer for attribute exchange, or a separate
   protocol to use once identity had been established, but we just
   didn't see discussion on doing that independently, or at least
   enough to justify encouraging the BoF inquiry.

media type registration; where is text/n3?

   Tim: Tim sent some mail to get text/n3. What happened to it?

   Ted: where?

   Tim: see [22]Application for MIME Media Type

     [22] http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/mediatypes.pl

   Tim: the script above gives you back a number.

   <timbl> 5004

   Ted: a different process for SDO than for individual/company

   [23]How to Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Specification

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype

   Tim: text/n3 doesn't have any standard status. I'd like to reserve

   <DanC> (registration of this mime type is a CR exit criterion for
   SPARQL, currently. [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/crq349 )

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/crq349

   Ted: you could do that, but we will need an internet draft.
   Procedures for registering MIME Types can be found in
   [RFC4288],[RFC4289]. The ones linked from [25]Application for MIME
   Media Type are deprecated.

     [25] http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/mediatypes.pl

   Ted: the registration depends on the use. we could reserve it and it
   can be changed later. it's much better if those specs don't change.
   as long as there is a version spec, we shouldn't have a problem for

   Tim: it's important to know which version you refer to at any time,
   this still allows changes.

   Ted: if you point to the previous one, you still need to be ok.

   Mark: if you want to be in the standard tree, like text/, this takes
   more time.

   Tim: my concern is the system isn't clear.

   <timbl> text/rdf+n3 [26]http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3

     [26] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3

   Leslie: this seems to fall into a general category of things to
   ... if somebody writes a note about this, I can champion it in the
   rigth places.

   Ted: as long as I have a formal w3c publication (to be defined by
   W3C) or an internet draft, I can move it forward.

   <DanC> tim, then you'd be in the
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype process

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype

   DanC: ADJOURN. Next meeting: March 7, 2007, 3:30pm ET

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Leslie to review IETF planning calendars e.g.
   [29]http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php recorded in

     [28] http://geneva.isoc.org/events/excel/eventreport.php
     [29] http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php

   [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 22:11:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:09:42 UTC