[apps-discuss] draft IETF 80 minutes

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 14 April 2011 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B324E0668 for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NA1QZd1YZbkp for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA478E0707 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-69.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.69]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F408F40D20 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:53:48 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4DA66102.4060200@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:50:42 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080802070405080909030204"
Subject: [apps-discuss] draft IETF 80 minutes
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, 14 Apr 2011 02:50:47 -0000

These are draft minutes:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/apparea.txt

Corrections are welcome.

Many thanks to Bert Greevenbosch for scribing!

/psa

========================================================================
AppsArea / APPSAWG Meeting Minutes
IETF 80
Monday, March 28, 2010, 0900-1130
Prague, Czech Republic
Hilton Prague, Congress Hall II

Area Directors: Alexey Melnikov, Peter Saint-Andre, Pete Resnick

APPSAWG WG Chairs: Barry Leiba, Jiankang Yao

Scribe: Bert Greevenbosch

Agenda:

<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/apparea.txt>

Slides:

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/materials.html#wg-apparea>

Audio:

<http://ietf80streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf80/ietf80-ch3-mon-am.mp3>

Chat Log:

<http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/apparea/2011-03-28.txt>

========================================================================

MINUTES

Chairs:
Note well reviewed
Logistics reviewed
Agenda bashed

Paul Hoffman:
Draft-hoffman-server-has-tls-04
Question: Should it be a service discovery protocol? Group is requested
  to consider.
Question: Is there a way to securely negotiate usage of this secure
  protocol?
Remark: We should do this in a separate working group
Question: Conflict with W3C security policy? Need to coordinate making
  sure there are not many different formats.
Remark: Requirements in APPAREA is OK, but we need experts. New working
  group or current DNS based working group?
Maybe it can be built on top of DNSsec.
Question: Does it require something we already have? Maybe UNAPTR. Don't
  focus on new protocol, but see if needed, and if so, which technology
  can be re-used.
Show of hands on the following:
* Who thinks we should not do it?
  (small support)
* Who thinks we should do it in a separate working group?
  (medium support)
* Who thinks we should do it in apparea?
  (small support)
* Who thinks we don't know enough yet?
  (highest support)

Patrik Faltstrom:
Unicode and IDNA
Remark: Seems network issue, should be in lower layer.

Mark Nottingham:
draft-nottingham-http-portal
Question: HTTPS could also allow this?
More discussion needed.

Murray S. Kucherawy:
Draft-kucherawy-mta-malformed
Several problems could arise when browsers/mail readers give some leeway
  to malformed messages. There are security issues involved. IETF should
  consider these and give some guidance.
Question: Separate WG or in APPSAWG? Individual draft?

Draft-kucherawy-rfc3462bis
Question: Connection to SpamRep in OMA?
YAM WG is going to recharter. Right place could become YAM.
Wait until YAM recharters. If doesn't, then APPSAWG makes sense.

Draft-lear-iana-timezone-database
More discussion is needed, and a side meeting on Wednesday morning
  8:00 – 9:00 is planned.

Eliot Lear:
draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-02
IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone Database
Volunteers are needed to provide feedback on the document.

Eric Rescorla:
Draft-rescolra-jsms-00
Bar BoF about cryptography 20:00 in Karlin I.
Question: Is there a need for a http-URI or is https-URI enough?

Bernie Höneisen:
IANA Registration of Enumservices for Internet Calendaring
Session chair: Look for experts on calendaring (small group) first.
Question: Why shut down ENUM and not work on that there?
Answer: Leadership wants wg to be shut down.

Alexey Melnikov:
Draft-melnikov-smtp-altrecip-on-error-00
Remark: Threat analysis is needed.
Draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-01
Discussion on mailing list.

Florian Echtler:
Draft-echtler-gispl-specification-01
Question: Is this related to W3C web-actions?
Answer: Yes, it is.
Remark: Transmitting the format could be work for another
  organization.
Close relationship to eventing and API. Chris and Mark should look
  for a suitable WG.

Dave Crocker
Draft-crocker-doseta-base
Remark: Semantics need thorough considerations, as they cannot be
  changed after implementation.
Question: Where is the work to be done?
Answer: Not looking for a working group, but for people that are
  interested. If the interest is there, we can have a look at the
  mechanics.

Chris Lilley
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/20
More discussion needed.

Bhumip Khasnabish
Virtual Desktop Infrastructure
List of possible work items
Remark: Proposal in OMA also to set-up virtual experience work item.
Next discussions from AD? Work of IETF? Is it a protocol or an API?
Need to discuss with ADs.

END

========================================================================