Re: [websec] Meeting minutes uploaded

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Thu, 15 November 2012 01:02 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214D721F87B4 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:02:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.900, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uaty5p1sFXZg for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:02:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og123.obsmtp.com (exprod6og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6E721F87A5 for <websec@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:02:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob123.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKQ/NAfyOj9P3vPXAfxg/kSQ0p4C9mdP@postini.com; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:02:46 PST
Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4b [10.128.4.237]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id qAF12iHP024249; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:02:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nahub01.corp.adobe.com (nahub01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.97]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id qAF12gXL012931; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.97]) with mapi; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:02:42 -0800
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>, IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:02:41 -0800
Thread-Topic: [websec] Meeting minutes uploaded
Thread-Index: Ac3Clo3DZJUNRcNMRwiiRtL9lUInrAANEvpw
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E36EF3456@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <50A3E3E0.7020708@KingsMountain.com>
In-Reply-To: <50A3E3E0.7020708@KingsMountain.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [websec] Meeting minutes uploaded
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:02:47 -0000

Re Mime sniffing, the minutes reported:

> Nobody in the group objected
> to having this move to WHAT-WG, and according to Larry Manister, the
> W3C is also fine with referencing the WHAT-?WG document, so the work
> item will be removed from our charter.

I did not say this. What I said in the meeting was that I had no objection to the working group dropping the work in the IETF.

To elaborate:
* I think dropping the work is the logical action if none of the implementors are willing to do the work in the IETF.

* I do not speak for W3C and what the W3C is "Fine with".
* However, I believe W3C management is concerned about insuring stable  normative references in W3C specs, but they will deal with those.

Larry