Minutes available for review (Re: W3C/IETF liaison teleconference 1 Nov)

[Philippe Le Hegaret <[e-mail]>]

                               IETF/W3C
                              1 Nov 2006

Attendees

   Present
          Thomas Roessler, Lisa Dusseault, Leslie Daigle, Ted Hardie,
          Dan Connolly, Tim Berners-Lee, Philippe Le Hégaret, Mark
          Nottingham

   Chair
          Dan

   Scribe
          Philippe

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Convene, review agenda
         2. [5]Plan next meeting
         3. [6]linking to BCP 47
         4. [7]HTTP - bringing it forward, patent terms, current
            situation with authors
         5. [8]update on the Web Security Context Working Group
            http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/
         6. [9]media type registration; where is text/n3?
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Convene, review agenda

Plan next meeting

   DanC: IETF turns. I nominate Ted?

   Ted: My turn ends in March...

   Resolution: Ted will chair

   DanC: time and date?

   Tim: same time on a Wednesday before next IETF meeting?

     68th IETF - Prague, Czech Republic
     (March 18 - 23, 2007)

   DanC Proposed: 7 Mar 2007 3:30p Boston time?

   <timbl> http://geneva.isoc.org/events/ ?

   <knitbot> http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php ?

   <timbl> http://geneva.isoc.org/events/excel/eventreport.php

   ACTION: Leslie to review IETF planning calendars e.g.
   http://geneva.isoc.org/events/excel/eventreport.php
   http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/11/01-ietf-minutes.html#action01]

   RESOLVED: to meet again 7 Mar 2007 3:30p Boston time, Ted Hardy to
   chair

   Ted: we will use Jabber and I will provide the bridge.

linking to BCP 47

   Philippe: BCP 47 should point to 4646 and 4647. Right now, it is a
   concatenation. Can we have a page instead?

   Leslie: the proposal is to have an headliner text, instead of a
   page.

   Philippe: sounds good.

   Resolved.

HTTP - bringing it forward, patent terms, current situation with
authors

   Tim: Roy Fielding was concerned since he wasn't ask regarding the
   revision of HTTP. His name was missing from it.

   Philippe: His name is on it.

   Tim: why Roy wasn't aware of this?

   <timbl> Bar-BOF at the last IETF ... no WG can be formed tll real
   BOF at IETF. meanwhile, individuals can publish suggestions

   <DanC> the author situation is resolved to my satsifaction. See
   [17]draft -01 of 23-Oct-2006

     [17] http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis/

   Lisa: unofficial BOF for HTTP at the last IETF. There is a group to
   try to form a WG. Until they have an official BOF and are
   successful, they can't have a WG. We encouraged the individuals to
   put a new draft. It is not my intent to revise a new HTTP spec with
   a new number for the moment.

   Philippe: Tim, we're involved in this through Yves...

   Tim: also question on IPRs. While the W3C patent policy covers our
   W3C Recommendations, HTTP isn't part of it. Somebody can work in W3C
   and still makes some fusses around HTTP. The PP has been beneficial
   for us. Apart from the joint WG we used to have, would it be
   possible in the charter of the WG to put it under the W3C PP? It
   wouldn't be simple...

   Leslie: it would be difficult for us to do so. A review of the
   pros/cons would be necessary.

   Ted: there has been discussion around cooperative relationship. A
   key thing here in chartering the work, the IPR policy would
   different from others groups and needs community review during
   charter phase. I wouldn't expect this review to be easy to have.

   Tim: pushback from large companies? developers in the garage?

   <DanC> (doing work in the W3C patent policy outside of a W3C WG is
   incoherent, as far as I understand. The W3C patent policy is not
   re-purposable, as I understand it.)

   DanC: Tim, our patent policy is linked to the W3C Process… days
   period, etc.

   Tim: yes, that's why I said it woudln't simple.

   Ted: for most of the changes, it's about errata. if anybody has
   patents, they relate much as much to the existing document. little
   actual danger to actual W3C Members. if there is new work
   incorporated, then yes, people would need to file disclosure. WG in
   the IETF that it will not put into a document anything that is
   encumbered. is there work in the community that is protected in HTTP
   now?

   Tim: maybe there is a way to write the charter to put everything
   royalty free

   Ted: applying the logic of avoiding patents in HTTP isn't a problem.
   Putting it into a different PP would be more problematic.

   Lisa: I'm not an AD, but as phrased by Ted that sounds like
   reasonable charter material, if it comes from the feet on the
   street.

   Tim: I felt for years that it would be nice if HTTP can fallback
   into a P2P protocol.

   Ted: something like bittorrent?

   Tim: completely trackable bittorrent kind of architecture.
   bittorrent is in IETF?

   Ted: no, the author wants to keep full control of it. the short
   answer is to first get a WG working to restart the work on HTTP.

   Lisa: an other area is cookie authentication

   [...]

   Leslie: this underscores the need to do the work on HTTP in a WG

   Ted: very likely to have the BOF in March in Prague. it's under
   consideration

update on the Web Security Context Working Group
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/

   Thomas: follow-up to the security workshop we held in March.

     14/15 November 2006,
     Initial face-to-face meeting, New York, USA.

   Thomas: around 20 participants in the WG. first f2f in NYC November
   15. if you think we're missing participants, let me know. there has
   been discussion around doing XML signature 1.1, to fix the c14n
   issue. some combination of IPR between W3C and IETF. which area
   director will be around to help on this? In particular security area
   director.

   Ted: i'm not standing for reappointment.

   Ted: security area director situation is unknown yet. The current
   one agreed to stand for reappointment.

   <lisa> Sam is very interested in the topic anyway.

   Thomas: what happened to the follow-up from Montreal in DIX?

   Lisa: we got a request for a BOF on attribute exchange.

   <DanC> (er... I'm confused... I thought a DIX BOF did happen, and
   I've seen requirements drafts)

   Lisa: not discussed on a mailing list, and no proposed charter, ie
   nothing to backup a BOF. Not ready to be brought to the IETF.

   <lisa> latest post on http://blog.commerce.net/, [20]A Skeptic's
   View of Identity 2.0

     [20] http://www.commerce.net/blog/?post=/2006/10/171300.e56954b4f6347e897f954495eab16a88.html

   <timbl> [21][dix] DIX BOF Meeting Materials

     [21] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dix/current/msg00576.html

   Lisa: there was a DIX BOF, then one merged BOF. Then the guys who
   proposed the BOF jumped on the OpenID band wagon, but they are out
   of the IETF community. Right now, the OpenID guys are planning to go
   a long way without listening to security experts. To try to clarify
   what I was saying about the 'meta-request' for a BOF, the only BoF
   inquiry we received related to identity for San Diego was on the
   topic of *attribute* exchange. That is, the inquiry was about having
   a BoF to talk about a standard for exchanging attributes about
   identities — in the absence of a standard for exchanging the
   identities themselves. It's not inconceivable to have an abstraction
   layer for attribute exchange, or a separate protocol to use once
   identity had been established, but we just didn't see discussion on
   doing that independently, or at least enough to justify encouraging
   the BoF inquiry.

media type registration; where is text/n3?

   Tim: Tim sent some mail to get text/n3. What happened to it?

   Ted: where?

   Tim: see [22]Application for MIME Media Type

     [22] http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/mediatypes.pl

   Tim: the script above gives you back a number.

   <timbl> 5004

   Ted: a different process for SDO than for individual/company

   [23]How to Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Specification

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype

   Tim: text/n3 doesn't have any standard status. I'd like to reserve
   it.

   <DanC> (registration of this mime type is a CR exit criterion for
   SPARQL, currently. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/crq349 )

   Ted: you could do that, but we will need an internet draft.

   <timbl> "Procedures for registering MIME Types can be found in
   [RFC4288],[RFC4289]'" is wrong, this is old info

   Ted: the registration depends on the use. we could reserve it and it
   can be changed later. it's much better if those specs don't change.
   as long as there is a version spec, we shouldn't have a problem for
   it.

   Tim: it's important to know which version you refer to at any time,
   this still allows changes.

   Ted: if you point to the previous one, you still need to be ok.

   Mark: if you want to be in the standard tree, like text/, this takes
   more time.

   Tim: my concern is the system isn't clear.

   <timbl> text/rdf+n3 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3

   Leslie: this seems to fall into a general category of things to
   clean
   ... if somebody writes a note about this, I can champion it in the
   rigth places.

   Ted: as long as I have a stable draft or an internet draft, I can
   move it forward.

   <DanC> tim, then you'd be in the
   http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype process

   DanC: ADJOURN. Next meeting: March 7, 2007, 3:30pm ET

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Leslie to review IETF planning calendars e.g.
   http://geneva.isoc.org/events/excel/eventreport.php
   http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/11/01-ietf-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]