- From: Stephen Jolly <stephen.jolly@rd.bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:49:49 +0000
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 10 Dec 2009, at 14:48, Arthur Barstow wrote: <snip> > 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 This was actually confirmation that I could hear you speaking on the conference call, but I am happy for the TWI spec to proceed to CR. <snip> > 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 I meant that there was an RFC for IPV6 private network address space. It's this one: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193 > 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 that should read "known", not "know" <snip rest of minutes> S
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 15:50:14 UTC