Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Thu, 10 November 2011 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7D711E80AB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:56:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.575
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aZ1xMe8t42+5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9495011E8088 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id pAA6trkq007150 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:55:53 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 6627_3d8b_0804ccde_0b69_11e1_89fb_001d096c566a; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:55:53 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:45807) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S156B66E> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:55:56 +0900
Message-ID: <4EBB7568.1020003@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:55:36 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <4EB8D0F4.9020907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <24FBF40353ABCC3A4F15E82B@PST.JCK.COM> <56B202FE-ED81-4C36-AB4C-0A809F51D009@standardstrack.com> <4EBB3762.6000907@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4EBB3762.6000907@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/*
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:56:01 -0000

I think it may be too early to discuss procedural points, but we are 
speaking about one, potentially two, drafts, both of which quite short. 
In the old days, AD-sponsored individual submission(s) would have been 
best. Now, we might need to move it through the Apps WG.

Trying to do anything like a BOF or a WG seems complete overkill. There 
are many people involved in fonts (in particular Web fonts). But I can't 
imagine them shell out the money just to come to an IETF meeting for 
getting a few types registered.

This is not about a spec for a new protocol or format. The formats 
exist, some of them for more than 10 years, some of them more recent. 
It's just about giving them labels.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2011/11/10 11:30, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 11/10/2011 5:00 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
>> Sounds like a call for a BOF.
>
>
> For a topic like this, I believe a BOF makes sense only for either or
> both of:
>
> 1. Interactive tutorial, to create a community of folk who share a
> common set of information and are going to proceed doing some work on
> the topic. Hence, this would prime the work pump.
>
> 2. Debate particulars, prior to formulating a spec. One can argue that
> that sounds like a regular working group, but I've tailored the
> description to fit a before-wg phase. In any event, this presumes that
> folks are already sharing a common base of knowledge and details and
> merely need to debates some details.
>
> My sense of this extended thread is that the group ain't quite far
> enough along for #2. I can't tell whether #1 is needed.
>
> d/