Re: [arcmedia] [apps-discuss] Proposed charter for arcmedia

Larry Masinter <> Sun, 04 January 2015 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4681A1AB3; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 17:23:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24bOub-qXmgD; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 17:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::674]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62A101A1AC9; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 17:23:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 01:23:18 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0049.002; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 01:23:18 +0000
From: Larry Masinter <>
To: Sean Leonard <>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] [arcmedia] Proposed charter for arcmedia
Thread-Index: AQHQJyeNuL7u9fgufEOJX1POSFIv65yuER+AgAESKiA=
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 01:23:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: [2601:9:8380:992:6043:96d7:2b0:6ee8]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-dmarcaction: None
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005003);SRVR:DM2PR0201MB0957;
x-forefront-prvs: 0446F0FCE1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(189002)(479174004)(24454002)(199003)(377454003)(2950100001)(16601075003)(19617315012)(19580395003)(74316001)(106116001)(62966003)(99286002)(92566001)(2900100001)(76176999)(15975445007)(54356999)(33656002)(102836002)(68736005)(107046002)(587094005)(54206007)(20776003)(19580405001)(77156002)(76576001)(106356001)(64706001)(86362001)(105586002)(120916001)(4396001)(99396003)(87936001)(2656002)(50986999)(97736003)(19625215002)(40100003)(101416001)(21056001)(46102003)(16236675004)(19300405004)(54606007)(122556002)(31966008)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR0201MB0957;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM2PR0201MB0960C87FF61C5B46306257DEC35B0DM2PR0201MB0960_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jan 2015 01:23:17.8097 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: fa7b1b5a-7b34-4387-94ae-d2c178decee1
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR0201MB0957
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 20:14:27 -0800
Cc: Matthew Kerwin <>, IETF Apps Discuss <>, "" <>, Graham Klyne <>, Mark Nottingham <>, Public TAG List <>
Subject: Re: [arcmedia] [apps-discuss] Proposed charter for arcmedia
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of creating a new top-level media type, \"archive\", for archive bundles." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 01:23:48 -0000

I didn’t want to quibble about the verb – “observed” is ambiguous, but so is “considered”. I was hoping not to have to define precisely what coordination is being mandated, but “will be looked at for informational purposes” isn’t strong enough.

If the W3C TAG work were instead in an IETF working group chartered to produce it, would the IETF even charter another group? If so, what coordination would be expected?

The way the IETF commits to do work is by chartering working groups; the way the IETF commits to coordinate is by putting the promise in working group charters (or, in APSAWG the document mini-charter).  I don’t want to wordsmith the charter and have the intent get lost. I want to avoid seeing IETF standardize arcmedia while W3C standardizes an arcmedia format which isn’t compatible. This may be simple or may require active coordination on both sides.

If we agree to the sentiment, we can decide how to say it in the charter.

(bcc public-ietf-w3c re arcmedia working group charter)


On 1/2/2015 11:33 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Sean Leonard <<>> wrote:
> "The W3C TAG work on packaging and archives, currently in progress, will also be observed.”

“observed” has two definitions: “will be looked at for informational purposes”, and “will be followed (respected = treated as normative)”.

Since the thing being observed is a work-in-progress outside of the IETF, I guessed that wouldn't be taken normatively.

How about "considered"?

"considered" is ok.