Subject: Agenda for W3C/IETF coordination call on Tuesday Oct 23, 7:00 am PDT

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:34:12 -0700

I have our coordination call coming up in two weeks, and I'm the one  
preparing the agenda and taking notes etc.  So far the only  
substantive agenda item I'm aware of is to discuss the proposed  
HTTPBIS WG and its charter, which I'll attach.

Other agenda items?

Thanks,
Lisa

-----

HTTP is one of the most successful and widely-used protocols on the
Internet today. However, its specification has several editorial
issues. Additionally, after years of implementation and extension,
several ambiguities have become evident, impairing interoperability
and the ability to easily implement and use HTTP.

The working group will refine RFC2616 to:
    * Incorporate errata and updates (e.g., references, IANA
registries, ABNF)
    * Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of
the specification
    * Clarify conformance requirements
    * Remove known ambiguities where they affect interoperability
    * Clarify existing methods of extensibility
    * Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely
implemented and also unduly affect interoperability
    * Where necessary, add implementation advice
    * Document the security properties of HTTP and its associated
mechanisms (e.g., Basic and Digest authentication, cookies, TLS) for
common applications

In doing so, it should consider:
    * Implementer experience
    * Demonstrated use of HTTP
    * Impact on existing implementations and deployments

The Working Group must not introduce a new version of HTTP, and
should not introduce new features or capabilities to HTTP.

The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
     * A document that is suitable to supersede RFC 2616
     * A document cataloguing the security properties of HTTP

Goals and Milestones:
Nov 2007 - First HTTP Revision Internet Draft
Dec 2007 - IETF 70 Meeting, Vancouver, BC, CA
Feb 2008 - First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
Mar 2008 - IETF 71 Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Jun 2008 - Request Last Call for HTTP Revision
Jul 2008 - IETF 72 Meeting, TBD
Jul 2008 - Request Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
Oct 2008 - Submit HTTP Revision to IESG for consideration as a Draft
Standard
Oct 2008 - Submit HTTP Security Properties to IESG for consideration
as Informational

---

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:47:31 +0200

On 2007-10-09 11:34:12 -0700, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> I have our coordination call coming up in two weeks, and I'm the
> one preparing the agenda and taking notes etc.  So far the only

> Other agenda items?

I'd be happy to give an update on the recently-held W3C Workshop on
XML Signature and Encryption.

Agenda:
  http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/ws/agenda
Not-yet-announced draft report:
  http://www.w3.ogr/2007/xmlsec/ws/report

In that context, it would be useful to learn how the IETF community
is dealing with the NSA Cryptosuite B algorithms (if at all); then
again, that might be a topic for a direct e-mail exchange with the
Security Directorate.

I also wonder if there's a broader BCP 56 discussion brewing, and
whether that's worth a bit of discussion on this call.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <[email-masked]>  +33-4-89063488

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:50:51 +1000

I wanted to bring that up as well.

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:55:27 -0400

> HTTPBIS WG and its charter, which I'll attach.

I'd like to do an other follow-up regarding the state of media types
request in the IESG. More specifically:
- update of the the WS Policy media type, to link to the latest version
of the W3C Recommendation. [Sent on September 23]
- request for the SparQL media types. [Sent on August 7]

Philippe

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:00:19 -0500

> > whether that's worth a bit of discussion on this call.

Huh? what's BCP 56? Do we need to talk in code?

OK, I'll look it up.
On the use of HTTP as a Substrate
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/bcp56

The TAG has an open issue on that, so please do clue
me in, preferably before tomorrow's TAG meeting.

HTTPSubstrate-16
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/16

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
office: tel:+1-617-395-0241
mobile: tel:+1-816-616-6576
mobile: mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:17:55 +0200

> me in, preferably before tomorrow's TAG meeting.

The thread that triggered my remark starts here:

  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00084.html

Some more messages that are worth looking at:

  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00095.html
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00097.html

(Sorry; it's late enough here that I won't swap in that thread in
detail.)

Regards,

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:46:09 -0500

Thanks for the ponters, Thomas; that was very helpful
in chatting with the TAG.

The case of SIP and IPP is interesting in the context
of the relationship between URI schemes and protocols,
which is another long standing, though
somewhat low priority, TAG issue.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/49 
schemeProtocols-49 2005-03-14

Perspectives vary; in fact, my own perspective varies
from time to time. Noah Mendelsohn has been working,
on and off, to write up perspectives on the issue in a draft.
I'd like him to join our discussion next week.
He's available at the scheduled time, Tuesday Oct 23, 7:00 am PDT.

Is that OK with you, Lisa? If so, please copy him
when you send out the phone number and such.

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:54:08 -0700

I'm afraid I've only booked an hour for the call Tuesday and we  
probably need to keep it to coordination issues.

I'm a little confused about Noah's draft. Is it about substrate  
issues or the relationship between URI schemes and protocols or  
both?  Either way, I would love to have more discussion later.  We  
might also come up with a different list of interested people if we  
schedule something specifically on those issues.  Is the draft going  
to be a W3C document, is it public somewhere already or will it be..?

One coordination topic, should we plan anything for the Vancouver  
Apps agenda or the HTTPBIS WG agenda to discuss either issue?

(And yes, the HTTPBIS WG was approved today though not announced yet)

Lisa

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:05:34 -0500

> probably need to keep it to coordination issues.

OK, I wondered if the agenda was getting a little overfull.

> both?

It's mostly about schemes and protocols, and it seems to
me that the substrate issue is one of the more important
cases of the schemes and protocols connection.

>   Either way, I would love to have more discussion later.  We  

It's public, though it's very drafty
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html

> Apps agenda or the HTTPBIS WG agenda to discuss either issue?

Good questions; I'm not sure yet...