Re: Notes from Oct 23 IETF/W3C coordination call

[Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]>]

We didn't do a roll call.  However, these are the people I noted:

Philippe Le Hégaret
Thomas Roessler
Dan Connolly
Tim Berners-Lee
Chris Newman
Lisa Dusseault
Mark Nottingham
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux

Did I miss anybody or any accents on names?  :)

thx,
Lisa

On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:07 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:

>
> A comment from someone who was not there -- it would be
> valuable to list the attendees of the meeting (particularly
> as the notes reference various people by first name only).
>
> WRT process -- W3C will look after posting in their
> space, and you can submit them as a "liaison report"
> next month when the IAB asks for same.  They will,
> eventually, theoretically, appear somewhere on the IAB
> website in public and findable fashion.
>
> Leslie.
>
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> These notes are reconstructed from the Jabber transcripts.  Thanks  
>> Thomas and Mark for taking the jabber notes.  Please send comments  
>> by Nov 13 so I can get these out (and by the way, what's the  
>> process for that?)
>> Lisa
>> ----- Agenda (after bashing on call): 1.  Work done by Content  
>> Transformation Task Force in the Mobile Web Initiative Best  
>> Practices Working Group -- Dominique Hazael-Massieux to join the  
>> call -- 15 min
>> 2.  HTTP BIS WG -- Lisa - 5 min
>> 3.  Update on the recently-held W3C Workshop on XML Signature and  
>> Encryption -- Thomas -- 5 min
>> 4.  Update of WS-Policy and SparQL media type -- 5 min
>> 5. Broader BCP 56 discussion -- everybody - 15 min
>> 6.  Schemes and Protocols -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ 
>> SchemeProtocols.html -- everybody --  15 min
>> 7.  Agenda for Vancouver IETF -- should these topics be on agendas  
>> for more discussion? -- Lisa
>> 8.  Content t\ype in HTML 5, link rels
>> 1  Content Transformation
>> New work in http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/  looking at existing  
>> technologies
>>  - based on existing W3C TAG findings
>>  - working on issues like, how to make sure that a page that is  
>> already transformed isn't transformed again, how to express  
>> transformation policy;
>>  - note recent outcry in UK, because vodafone transcoding proxy  
>> messed up existing mobile web sites
>> Discussion of overlap with OPES: since OPES also has transforming  
>> proxies, in this case HTTP intermediaries.  Does new WG have same  
>> requirements for disclosure?   IETF/Apps wouldn't force anybody to  
>> do things this exact way, but there may be lessons to be learned.   
>> For example, why has there been no uptake?  Apps ADs aren't aware  
>> of flaws in the technology, so it may be a socio-economic reason  
>> why there's no uptake (e.g. the people in a position to implement  
>> OPES aren't the people who want it)
>> Announcements requested to go to: apps-review, HTTP WG
>> 2  HTTPbis WG
>> draft charter: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/w3c-ietf-coord/ 
>> 2007Oct/0001.html
>> Charter: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/httpbis-charter.html
>> Mention of call from semweb community to see what HTTP codes  
>> mean.  The definitions in the standard are sometimes ambiguous and  
>> some things aren't covered. Can the HTTP WG crisp up those  
>> definitions?  Lisa responded that this kind of effort, crisping up  
>> definitions of things that have already been standardized, seems  
>> to result in years worth of bitter arguments (e.g. discussion of  
>> what a lock was in WebDAV; arguments on resource instances  
>> occasioned by Mogul paper http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/ 
>> 444/).  HTTP has many such problems, see similar issues with  
>> resource, response, entity.  Conclusion was that for the semweb  
>> community to bring that up in the wider community at this point  
>> would mean more argument and no benefit.  Somebody suggested to  
>> produce OWL ontology to do formal model and maybe tie to bits over  
>> the wire.
>> Question about charter -- are test suites being developed?  The  
>> IETF, like W3C, doesn't do compliance outside specs.  The W3C,  
>> however, keeps test suites.  We think this is important for HTTP  
>> to crisp things up.  One thing the IETF has done is to produce an  
>> I-D or RFC that shows torture tests and the like: e.g. request and  
>> response messages in text form.  Producing the software of a test  
>> suite has never been a IETF WG deliverable, but it has been done  
>> closely with WGs.  Similarly, Interop events never done officially  
>> by an IETF WG, but in concert with one
>> Patent policy for HTTP?  Tim points out that there's an effective  
>> royalty-free zone for some standards, it's awkward that HTTP isn't  
>> in there.   Lisa adds that there's no guarantee that HTTP isn't in  
>> the royalty-free zone; we just don't know because it was developed  
>> with a lot of things left unsaid about patent status.  In theory  
>> an IETF WG can include technology that is patented along with  
>> licensing assurances.  However, since the WG is revising HTTP  
>> without adding new inventions, it's unlikely that the WG can add  
>> anything that's known to be patented.  So HTTP's patent situation  
>> will likely remain the same: muddy, but no known problems.  We  
>> don't see a concrete action to take at this point.
>> NOTE that participants in HTTP WG have to disclose relevant  
>> patents even if the patents are not new. 3.  XMLsec workshop
>> Workshop report releasing today: http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/ws/ 
>> report
>> Main outcome -- there is some work to be done, both on the crypto  
>> side and xml side.  IETF involvement is coordination.  Thomas will  
>> send pointers to SAAG.
>> Thomas would like IETF feedback on the path forward for selecting  
>> hash algorithms (e.g., sha-1). Also, what the IETF is (not) doing  
>> with crypto suite B.  The  TLS WG has been working on revisions to  
>> the TLS spec for adding cyphersuites, and particularly for hash  
>> agility.
>> 4.  WS-Policy and SPARQL media types
>> Thomas sent e-mail about registering thes, was told to contact  
>> IANA; they came back and said to talk to the IESG.  Chris agreed  
>> to get that on the IESG agenda.  5/6.  BCP56, schemes and protocols
>> Issues about BCP56 have been coming up.  BCP56 was written with  
>> the experience of abuses of SMTP and other e-mail protocols  
>> overloading a single port.  It would be bad if use of port 80  
>> required firewalls and other intermediaries to get deep into the  
>> protocol to be able to ensure security or other services. On the  
>> other hand, we know that BCP56 isn't necessarily the best advice  
>> we could give today.   A new port example is IPP:  you can get at  
>> IPP resources with HTTP, but conventionally they're named ipp://  
>> and not on port 80.  However, there are more examples, and more  
>> recently, which do not use a new scheme nor a new port.  People  
>> want new protocols to be easy to implemen.  Atompub WG explained  
>> issue quite succintly -- want to be able to write atompub servers  
>> with java servlets or ruby on rails, without touching HTTP server  
>> engine.
>> Beyond this formal standards work, there are a huge number of ad- 
>> hoc protocols.  We can't put all these on separate ports or  
>> schemes (or can we?)  Another possibility, and perhaps more  
>> realistic, is to use separate content-types.  The content-type in  
>> the client request serves two functions, of explaining how to  
>> interpret the client request (schema and/or language) and also to  
>> request a particular service of the server.  For example, some  
>> certificate retrieval stuff works this way, where a MIME type for  
>> the request advertises that the request contains a detailed query  
>> and the response should include one or more certificates.
>> Is separate Content-Types is also a can of worms?  Does it amount  
>> to content negotiation for format which is mostly considered a  
>> failure?  One doesn't need to see this as negotiation, but rather  
>> as an indication what the application is.  If most people just use  
>> application/xml as the Content-Type, then once again we have  
>> undifferentiated traffic. Using http scheme, port 80 and POST of  
>> application/xml gives nobody reasonable chance at filtering.
>> Is the content-type registration system easy enough, extensible  
>> enough?  Is that why they use application/xml?  Chris points out  
>> that registering in vnd.* is easy, and we also have provisional  
>> registration.  So why don't inventors of ad-hoc protocols use new  
>> MIME types?   Is it because they can't be bothered?  Is the issue  
>> not one of simplifying the process, but one of ownership?  Perhaps  
>> when a company asks for a registration, they not only publicize  
>> their intent, they also tie themselves down to one thing (one MIME  
>> type, scheme, or whatever) and this is the basic reason people  
>> make excuses -- they just don't want to limit their own actions  
>> like this.
>> Topic: Next meeting
>> Prefer February: Philippe Le Hegaret will get a date selected.
>
> -- 
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Reality:
>      Yours to discover."
>                                 -- ThinkingCat
> Leslie Daigle
> [e-mail]
> -------------------------------------------------------------------