- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:48:52 -0500
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the MMM DD Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 17 December 2009 (the
next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be
considered Approved.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Widgets Voice Conference
10 Dec 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/1202.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-irc
Attendees
Present
Art, Marcin, SteveJ, Arve, David, Marcos, Robin
Regrets
Suresh
Chair
Art
Scribe
ArtB
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review and tweak the agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]TWI spec: LC#2 comments
4. [8]TWI spec: Normative References that are Work In Progress
5. [9]TWI spec: CfC to publish Candidate Recommendation
6. [10]WARP spec: getting wide review of the 8-Dec-2009 LCWD
7. [11]Widget URI spec
8. [12]AOB
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> Scribe: ArtB
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 10 December 2009
<Marcos> be there in 1 sec
Review and tweak the agenda
AB: the draft agenda was posted on 9 December (
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/12
02.html ). Any change requests?
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/1202.html
DR: would like to add PAG
AB: OK, will add to AOB section
... any other change requests?
[ None ]
Announcements
AB: the only announcement I have is that there will be no call on
Dec 24 or Dec 31, thus the last call for 2009 will be on December 17
and we will resume on January 7.
... any other annoucements?
[ None ]
TWI spec: LC#2 comments
AB: the comment period for TWI LC#2 ended December 8. The only
comment was from Kai Hendry. Marcos and Robin responded to Kai's
comment and Kai indicated the group's response was satisfactory.
... does anyone have any concerns about the way the comments were
handled (
[15]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-a
pis-20091117/doc/ )?
[15] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-
widgets-apis-20091117/doc/
[ None ]
TWI spec: Normative References that are Work In Progress
AB: the TWI spec has 3 normative references that are work in
progress: HTML5, Web IDL and Web Storage. This means TWI spec cannot
be promoted to Recommendation until these references are "more
mature", apparently Proposed Recommendations.
... there was a related discussion about this (e.g.
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/11
57.html ) and the policy, is defined by the Process Document and the
Transition Rules.
... does anyone have any concerns or questions about this?
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009OctDec/1157.html
[ No ]
TWI spec: CfC to publish Candidate Recommendation
AB: given we have addressed all of the TWI LC comments, it appears
the TWI spec is ready for Candidate. Any comments about that?
<darobin> +1 for CR
<darobin> yes!
<steve> yes
<marcin> yes
AB: proposed Resolution: the TWI spec is ready for publication as a
Candidate Recommendation. Any objections?
[ No ]
RESOLUTION: the TWI spec is ready for publication as a Candidate
Recommendation
<scribe> ACTION: barstow submit a Transition Request to publish a CR
of the TWI spec [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-467 - Submit a Transition Request to
publish a CR of the TWI spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-17].
AB: thanks to the Editors of the TWI spec - Marcos, Arve and Robin!
WARP spec: getting wide review of the 8-Dec-2009 LCWD
AB: Besides DAP WG, are there any other WGs or external groups we
want to ask for comments re 8-Dec-2009 LCWD?
... Note it is very important we get as much review as possible.
Additionally, proof of wide review is a requirement to progressing
to Candidate Recommendation.
... is this something BONDI will reviewing?
DR: yes, more than likely BONDI will review it
AB: do you need me or Team to ask them?
<darobin> should we ask the new security list?
DR: no, I will do that
RB: perhaps we should ask the new security IG
AB: that's a good point; I'll send a request
<scribe> ACTION: barstow ask public-web-security to review WARP LC
[recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-468 - Ask public-web-security to review
WARP LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-17].
AB: anything eles on WARP spec for today?
... perhaps SteveJ and Marcin can use this time
SJ: I just send an email to the public list
MH: I can provide some info to SJ re discussions related to the
"local" WARP requirement
RB: I think Arve has ideas as well
... it would be good to get some input from Opera
SJ: any feedback on what Opera has done would be useful
<arve> We'll call in again
Arve: I just started to read SJ'e email
... I authored the doc from Opera
... but not sure that feature should be supported
... think defn of local should be up to the local admin
... not clear what should happen with IPv6
SJ: there is an RFC for IPv6
... I'll send it to the list
... IPv6 is of course more complicated
Arve: what's the use case for knowing what is local and what is not?
SJ: there are some networks with no DNS or know IP addresses
... but WARP requires an IP address
<darobin> for the record, I think that SJ's use case is definitely a
good one
SJ: therefore as a widget developer cannot address those hosts
Arve: can use "*"
... in this case
<marcin> [19]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862#section-5.3
[19] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862#section-5.3
Arve: the network becomes complicated i.e. the context of what is
local
SJ: yes, could use "*"
... but the UA may not support it
... especially in a mobile net with operator restrictions
... it would also give access to *any* IP address on the Internet
Arve: I think most devs will use no access or "*"
SJ: not sure that's going to be the case
<marcin> [20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/ says:
[20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/
SJ: I am mostly interested in the mobile case
<marcin> The use of the character string "local" is intended to
efficiently and interoperably specify the hosts belonging to the
local network. It is assumed that the lack of such a possibility
would result in the extensive usage of the U+002A ASTERISK (*)
special value and thus could result in the access request policy
model being ineffective.
MH: I just put my comments in IRC
... they cite the draft I created a while ago
... I think SJ's comments are captured in my draft
... Need to limit the network somehow and we need to get agreement
on the "how"
... Needs to work with VPN networks too
... need to distinguish Internet and Intranet
Arve: why is local/private/Intranet so important it needs to be
restricted
... local network is configurable on the handset
MH: primary use case here is widget I want to run at home that only
works on devices in my home
... e.g. to display images from a UPnP server
... If I use "*", it contradicts the whole use case as it opens to
the entire Internet
Arve: I have an argument against that
DR: need to support defensive depth
<steve> is mDNS sufficiently well-standardised? ISTR it's only an
informational RFC, but I might be wrong
MH: need to add more semantics to <access> element
Arve: not sure we it makes sense to separate local and remote on IP
addresses
... think it opens too many holes
SJ: I'd like to understand those holes
<darobin> +1 on SJ making a proposal
<marcin> +1
<arve> +1 on proposal
SJ: I'll follow-up on the mail list
<darobin> I think that mDNS is reasonably well understood, but let
me check
AB: good; let's continue this topic on the list
<timeless_mbp> there are certainly 3-4 useful mDNS impls
Widget URI spec
AB: after I submitted today's agenda, Larry Masinter responded to
several of Robin's replies. The comment tracking doc is (
[21]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-u
ri-20091008/doc/ ).
[21] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-
widgets-uri-20091008/doc/
<darobin> ah, there appears to be Service Location Protocol (SLP) on
standards track
AB: Robin, do we want to discuss any of Larry's emails today?
RB: I haven't looked at LM's emails in detail enough to discuss
today
... hope to respond by tomorrow
AB: OK
<timeless> Zakim: aabb is also me
AB: anything else on LM's comments or the Scheme spec for today?
[ No ]
AB: given LM's new emails, we won't discuss CR for Scheme spec today
AOB
AB: next call is December 17
... David, you wanted an update on the WARP PAG?
<Marcos> +q about publishing updates
DR: activity for a PAG should happen within 30 days
... would like to know if there is any status to share?
<Marcos> +q
<scribe> ACTION: barstow ask Team to provide WARP PAG status to the
WG [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-469 - Ask Team to provide WARP PAG status
to the WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-17].
DR: would like that to go out by tomorrow
<marcin> mDNS will require some implementation, "local" does not
DR: if that is possible
<marcin> trying to make it simpler
MC: I didn't see Updates on the agenda
AB: my recollection is you Marcos agreed to have Updates ready for a
new WD pub by 17 Dec
MC: OK, I can do that
<steve> apologies - WUA?
AB: I will try to get the CR for the TWI spec published this year,
but timing wise, that may not be possible
... are there any other docs we will try to publish by Dec 18?
MC: only the Updates spec and TWI CR
RB: perhaps URI spec but not clear we can do that
AB: anything else on publications?
[ No ]
AB: any other AOB topics?
[ No ]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
<darobin> ooh, I forgot to ask!
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow ask public-web-security to review WARP LC
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow ask Team to provide WARP PAG status to the WG
[recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow submit a Transition Request to publish a CR of
the TWI spec [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 14:49:57 UTC