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

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Sat, 03 January 2015 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
X-Original-To: arcmedia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: arcmedia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2B71A00A8; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 00:32:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZTYl6i0UMd7W; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 00:32:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF5021A0035; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 00:32:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [23.241.1.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93D7022E1F4; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 03:32:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54A7A8F5.1000402@seantek.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 00:31:49 -0800
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwYdnW+o4WUb72VM6yuEP8-jBxQ-KgYQm7KP2Sq9E6dp5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPRnXtkg5GzLmPOWP=DrV8gTvgV+XDhOi=n3OZ86Yrhw+hOgJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwad-UcKECA=m7Zqhw+VZ6wy=bFPVKs_ik+fqjPW7-U7cQ@mail.gmail.com> <54A41D6C.9010501@ninebynine.org> <DM2PR0201MB09606618607D909EA82635E0C35C0@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <86C96FDF-9A48-43A3-B38A-468F4407AD82@mnot.net> <CAL0qLwbfU7MPFiBngDXjv4WND1d1=Y3H=FJs6AP6EQvsPqYcFA@mail.gmail.com> <CACweHNAvZopEPN5zbwT0fXOVXSNimr0UeKbABOfrsgM4HGjP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR0201MB09603E51D030435C30B8A069C35D0@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <286F8573-CD20-49DD-A361-B2D610D229AB@seantek.com> <CAL0qLwZujCxm1a3C55Tz+d5enS+hotbA=mnAkwHKTtWtH+wXww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZujCxm1a3C55Tz+d5enS+hotbA=mnAkwHKTtWtH+wXww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030207080301060806000806"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/arcmedia/NHNLFW52EI9RiW4J4D67l-qg8Mc
Cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "arcmedia@ietf.org" <arcmedia@ietf.org>, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Public TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [arcmedia] [apps-discuss] Proposed charter for arcmedia
X-BeenThere: arcmedia@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of creating a new top-level media type, \"archive\", for archive bundles." <arcmedia.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/arcmedia>, <mailto:arcmedia-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/arcmedia/>
List-Post: <mailto:arcmedia@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:arcmedia-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/arcmedia>, <mailto:arcmedia-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 08:32:48 -0000

On 1/2/2015 11:33 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com 
> <mailto:dev+ietf@seantek.com>> 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.

Please also put ISO 9660 in the charter, however--or if people don't 
like ISO 9660, some other archive format that is unquestionably a disk 
image. (TARs can be disk images, as they can store inode block info. But 
they are not generally thought of primarily in that way.)

Sean