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

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:38:22 +0000

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]

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 07:58:48 -0800

Changes suggested below...

>    reasonable charter material, if it comes from the feet on the

That was Leslie -- I *am* an AD :)

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

Add "Attribute Exchange' as a standalone topic was " to beginning of  
this last statement...

>    doing that independently, or at least enough to justify encouraging

To add more context to this I suggest the following split into two  
para's:

In Houston there was a DIX BOF, then one merged Web authentication  
BOF combining two BoF proposals in Montreal.  Then the guys who  
proposed the DIX BOF joined the OpenID effort so haven't pursued more  
BOFs or a WG on DIX -- and the OpenID effort is currently not part of  
the IETF community.  Right now, the OpenID guys are planning to go a  
long way without official involvement from IETF 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.

...  Sorry I was confusing on the call, I was still on Paris time :)

-- Lisa

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:39:26 -0800

Hi Phiippe,
	Thanks for the minutes; some corrections below

>     * [10]Summary of Action Items

s/turn/term/

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

s/Hardy/Hardie/

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

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.

>   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.

>   possible in the charter of the WG to put it under the W3C PP? It

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?

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

(The current one=Russ Housely)

>   identities - in the absence of a standard for exchanging the

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

>   Ted: as long as I have a stable draft or an internet draft, I can

s/stable draft/formal w3c publication/

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

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:45:04 -0600

On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 10:39 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
[...]
> What do folks think about redacting to that extent?

Yes, let's do.

Philippe, if you need specific text, please say so.

-- 
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: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:31:30 -0500

Agreed re. Ted's proposal to cut down the back & forth (and
request text if needed!).

>    ... if somebody writes a note about this, I can champion it in the

s/rigth/right/

And, I believe Ted introduced a typo -- it's Russ Housley, not Russ
Housely.

Thanks, Philippe.

Leslie.

---

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:05:25 -0500

I'm finally getting around this. Here is a short proposed text:
[[
Tim: Since HTTP is a critical part of the Web, W3C has concerns about
the IPR situation applying to RFC 2616. Without having actual knowledge
of a patent that would apply to HTTP 1.1, we're afraid that HTTP 1.1, as
it currently stands or in a new revision, isn't be protected enough
against patents out there, and this might come back and bites us later.

Ted: the IETF mechanism to handle this 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. In addition, if anyone has knowledge
of an IPR issue against the RFC, they should do a disclosure and the WG
can then act on it as necessary.
]]

The text above would replace this text below from our minutes:
[[
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.

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

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

Leslie: 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.

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.

[...]

]]

Philippe