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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Phiippe,
	Thanks for the minutes; some corrections below

At 1:38 PM +0000 11/2/06, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>                               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...

s/turn/term/


>   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

s/Hardy/Hardie/

>   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.


Leslie:  the initial proposal is to provide headliner text clarifying it is
a concatenation.  The same issue arises for multi-document STDs, so
a broader solution may be coming.


>   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.

Tim: Roy Fielding was concerned that a draft was published recapitulating
his text, but without his name on it.

Philippe:  His name has been restored.


>   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...

I would like us to consider seriously cutting down the back and forth
listed below, so we describe the concern that Tim raised, and note that
the IETF mechanism to handle it is controlled by the WG's understanding
of the need to limit new items included to those where the IPR situation has
no known issues.  That argues for early engagement by companies who
understand that.

What do folks think about redacting to that extent?



>   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 ProcessŠ 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.

(The current one=Russ Housely)



>   <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

These are correct; it is the older ones listed here:
http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/mediatypes.pl that are wrong.



>   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.

s/stable draft/formal w3c publication/

(As Mark noted, it is up to the W3C to determine what
a formal publication under your rules)



>   <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]