Re: Proposals received

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
> == Execution and Security Model ==
>
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/SecurityModel/RequirementsForSecurityModel.html
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/RunTime-Security/Overview.html
>
> Our charter asks that we publish a FPWD of the Execution and Security
> Model this quarter.  Mounir's proposal looks like a reasonable
> starting point for a FPWD, but there is a question in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Jan/0000.html
> as to how we should coordinate with the WebApps working group.
>
> John Lyle's comments in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Jan/0001.html
> are worth discussing, but they appear to be technical feedback that we
> can use to improve the draft after FPWD.
>
> It sounds like the next step here is for Wonsuk and me to talk with
> the WebApps chairs to make sure we're not going to step on their toes
> by issuing a call for consensus to publish Mounir's proposal as a
> FPWD.

I agree.

I think the chairs of the WebApps WG are actually limited in their
options by how willing the participants of the WebApps WG is to
implement a specification. So to a large extent you are actually
sitting on two chairs there since Google is likely the other
participant needed to get the group to accept the work.

I don't mind if we start the discussions in the SysApps WG first and
bring it to the WebApps WG once it's a bit more mature and complete.

> == Messaging API ==
>
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Messaging/Messaging.html
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Messaging/SMS.html
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Messaging_Intel/Messaging.html
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Messaging_webinos/Messaging.HTML
>
> We've received a number of proposals for Messaging, and there's been a
> bunch of discussion on the list.  As mentioned by Jonas in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2012Dec/0009.html,
> it's not clear to me that we're all on the same page about use cases
> and requirements.  Rather than move directly to a FPWD, I wonder we
> should first work on use cases and requirements for this deliverable.
> If that seems like a reasonable approach, Wonsuk and I will confer
> about how to structure that discussion.

I'd like to avoid spending too much time coming to some sort of
agreement on an official usecases and requirements doc since those can
be as much work to develop as a spec itself.

But I do agree that having some sort of rough outline for what
usecases and requirements we have would be a good idea. I'm happy to
provide mozilla's use cases once we start that discussion.

> == Raw Sockets API ==
>
> We haven't received any proposals for this deliverable yet, but Claes
> Nilsson wrote that he plans to submit a proposal relatively soon:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Jan/0004.html
>
> IMHO, we should consider proposals that missed the deadline, but we
> should preferentially focus our attention on proposals that did make
> the deadline.

This isn't detailed enough to be an "real" proposal, but here is what
we at mozilla have implemented and what we'd like to propose to this
group:

http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/network/interfaces/nsIDOMTCPSocket.idl#29

There are a few things that we expect will need to be changed in this API:
* We should use a real constructor rather than a .open method
* The binaryType API likely needs to be changed to fit the latest
whims of how ArrayBuffers should be used :)
* Buffering might need to be more configurable

Additionally we'd like to add startTLS support as well as support for
incoming connections, likely by using system messages.

/ Jonas

Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 04:56:54 UTC