Subject: Minutes W3C/IETF Liaison 20060213

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:42:51 -0500

Available at http://www.w3.org/2006/02/13-ietf-w3c-minutes.html

NEXT CALL:
   Mon, 5 Jun 2006 2pm Boston time. Leslie to chair, though various
risks noted

   (If you can't make it, contact the chair).

I'll book the bridge the next call,

Philippe

Text version of the minutes:
   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                       IETF/W3C liaison meeting

13 Feb 2006

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/13-ietf-w3c-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Philippe Le Hégaret, Dan Connolly, Thomas Roessler, John
          Klensin, Ted Hardy, Leslie Daigle, Tim Berners-Lee

   Regrets
          Scott Hollenbeck

   Chair
          Philippe

   Scribe
          DanC

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Action items
         2. [5]W3C Workshop on Transparency and Usability of Web
            Authentication
         3. [6]Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)
         4. [7]DIX and DMSP BOFs
         5. [8]Problems with the IETF's copying permissions
         6. [9]Status update on calsify?
         7. [10]Next Call
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   [PENDING] ACTION: DanC to look into adding "note well..." notice to
   webdav, uri lists [recorded in
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2005/08/15-ietf-w3c-minutes]

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/15-ietf-w3c-minutes

   [DROPPED] ACTION: Philippe to check with Martin about the status of
   file: [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/08/15-ietf-w3c-minutes]

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/15-ietf-w3c-minutes

   Ted: Larry said he intends to do it

   DanC: yes, I saw that

Action items

W3C Workshop on Transparency and Usability of Web Authentication

   [14]Toward a More Secure Web — W3C Workshop on Transparency and
   Usability of Web Authentication , 15/16 March 2006 — New York City,
   USA

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/Security/usability-ws/

   Thomas: program committee is reviewing position papers. workshop is
   focussed on user experience of web browsing, and security problems
   there. we have participation from financial services, [missed],
   browser vendors. workshop program to appear in a week or so

   <timbl> User interface aspects of the browser security problem.

Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)

   Ted: DKIM WG is chartered. 1st meeting at the upcoming Dallas IETF.
   In the security area. I think the milestones in the [15]DKIM charter
   are up-to-date. there were some concerns about the openness of the
   original designers to accept changes, but they've acommodated
   request for incompatible change

     [15] http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dkim-charter.html

   DanC: some W3C members are asking about "what should a large user
   org do?"

   Ted: you could tell them to be sure their DNS service doesn't block
   resource records.

   (it would be nice to have a pointer to a nice article aimed at
   sysadmins of large enterprises)

   Thomas: level on consensus for the threats & reqs document?

   Ted: there's WG last call and IETF last call… consensus is rough,
   but basically there; there seems to be critical mass of support for
   an important use case. [… some technical explanation of a case that
   is not covered… zombies and granularity of domain policies… ]. Some
   community disagreement about whether or not there needs to be
   support for distinguishing between different e-mail addresses @ the
   same domain. See also [16]Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
   (RR) Types.

     [16] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3597.txt

   (this case seems to go beyond what I see as critical requirements)

   TimBL: what do the signatures look like? PGP? PKI?

   <Leslie> BTW -- to refresh peoples' memories -- we did talk about
   DKIM on our last call (at the time it had bof'ed once, and was
   lining up to BOF in Vancouver)

   Ted: it's like disconnected CMS in S/MIME, but it's new… a critical
   question is: which parts of the message are signed?

DIX and DMSP BOFs

   Ted: the DMSP is a proposal for a [17]Distributed Multimodal
   Synchronization Protocol. a protocol for stuff that goes between
   components of, e.g., a voice browsing system [?]

     [17] http://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt

   Ted: DIX didn't make Vancouver, but are having a BOF in Dallas. See
   [18]IETF 65 BOF Announcement: Digital Identity Exchange (DIX)

     [18] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dix/current/msg00246.html

   <Thomas> DIX BOF won't be reviewing a charter

   <Thomas> Folks involved in SAML agree it's not too much of an
   overlap

   Ted: DSMP BOF is unlikely for Dallas; they may have time in the
   Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area open meeting

   [19]Multimodal Interaction Activity]

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/

   Thomas: interaction with MS Infocard?

   (I'm curious about DIX compared to OpenID too.)

   Ted: dunno; ask scott in email?

   [Ted is excused]

   <Leslie> speaking as a mailing list reader, not anything else — it
   seems like the dix proposal as currently stated is very much in
   danger of overruning other efforts. That's one of the things that
   will have to get fixed.

Problems with the IETF's copying permissions

   Philippe: It looks like there are issues with the copying
   permissions in the IETF [20]Problems with the IETF's copying
   permissions…

     [20] http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/

   John: yes, we've heard that issue raised. it's an ongoing
   discussion.

   “The license in RFC 2026 [$1\47] gave third parties the right to
   produce unrestricted derivative works, under some conditions.”

   John: it's a question of rights to produce derivative works,
   expecially code excerpts

   Dan: ah. yes. W3C has a separate software license for those reasons.

Status update on calsify?

   no news.

   DanC: I'm curious about VCalendar testing… esp w.r.t. hCalendar and
   microformats

   no urgency

Next Call

   <plh> Monday, October 2, 2006, 2pm Eastern?

   Leslie: as opposed to 3x/yr?. 1st week June?

   June 5, 2006, 2pm Eastern?

   Mon, 5 Jun 2006 2p Boston time OK for Dan

   RESOLUTION: to meet again Mon, 5 Jun 2006 2pm Boston time. Leslie to
   chair, though various risks noted

Summary of Action Items

     * [PENDING] ACTION: DanC to look into adding "note well..." notice
       to webdav, uri lists [recorded in
       [21]http://www.w3.org/2005/08/15-ietf-w3c-minutes]

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/15-ietf-w3c-minutes

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.127
    ([23]CVS log)
    $Date: 2006/02/13 20:38:15 $

     [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:49:23 -0500

Sorry -- we generally *agree* on the minutes before they
become public, just in case there is some material of
sensitivity to either org!

Could you please take down the posted version and wait
a week for comments?

Thanks,
Leslie.

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:04:11 -0600

> sensitivity to either org!

yes, the norm is 7 day review. Sorry I didn't make
this more clear to Philippe.

> Could you please take down the posted version and wait

I have made them available only to the W3C staff, for now.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:05:15 -0500

Perfect -- thanks!

Leslie.