Subject: Re: next meeting

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 15:54:32 -0700

--On April 29, 2008 13:42:03 +0000 Philippe Le Hegaret <[email-masked]> wrote:
> At least two things are happening at W3C that are relevant for IETF:
> - Last Call for XMLHttpRequest Object
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/
>   deadline is June 2, 2008

If it would be interesting to the W3C, I would like to ask the IETF 
security directorate to review this, hopefully resulting in suggestions for 
security considerations in the specification.  I won't do this if feedback 
on that topic is unwelcome.  But given how important this piece is to the 
web infrastructure I think a better security considerations section would 
improve the specification quality and merit asking a favor from the IETF 
security area.  What do you think?

> - Media Fragments Working Group Charter (draft)
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-fragments-wg.html

Looks interesting.  I'd like to request that the WG consider to what extent 
this intersects with IETF media features (RFC 2912) and if it does to 
prepare the appropriate feature registrations.  While that IETF technology 
hasn't deployed widely yet, and I'm a bit dubious of the "algebra" part of 
the specification, the registry portion of that specification is an 
important building block for media processing and conversion, IMHO.  I know 
the IMAP community is preparing a conversion specification leveraging the 
media features registry with the intent of providing media conversion for 
mobile devices with reduced media capabilities relative to a desktop.  A 
feature tag to request an audio/video temporal fragment would be usable by 
that framework.

		Thanks,
		- Chris

---

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 13:13:41 +0200

> If it would be interesting to the W3C, I would like to ask the
> IETF security directorate to review this, hopefully resulting in
> suggestions for security considerations in the specification.  I
> won't do this if feedback on that topic is unwelcome.  But given
> how important this piece is to the web infrastructure I think a
> better security considerations section would improve the
> specification quality and merit asking a favor from the IETF 

Frankly, if the working group wouldn't welcome that feedback, I'd
think we should make them welcome it. ;-)

In other words, I think this is a great idea; the only caveat being
that there is a bunch of other topics under discussion that might
merit similar review.  I'm specifically thinking of various
cross-domain messaging and API proposals beyond XMLHttpRequest that
are under discussion around the web API and application formats
working groups.

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

---

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 09:46:07 -0400

> security area.  What do you think?

Such a review would be greatly appreciated and welcomed. It would also
be nice, though those documents are not in Last Call, to have a similar
review for Access Control, XHR2, and Microsoft's XDR proposal:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/
- http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Mar/0096.html

> feature tag to request an audio/video temporal fragment would be usable by 

Looking at rfc 2912, it looks to me that there would not overlap between
the media fragment mechanism and the media features for mime content.
The fragment wouldn't carry any information regarding the features
provided by the medium, but instead also one to seek to a specified
point in the medium. It seems to me that they could be complementary in
fact. I added the RFc to the list mentioned in the charter.
The issue with the charter is that it will come up with a mechanism
*that is independent of the underlying audio or video codec in use*. In
other words, the expectation would be that it will be application to all
audio/* and video/*. http://www.example.org/myvideo?ntp=0:0:20 will have
the same definition whether the video is mpeg4, flash video, 3gpp, or
ogg theora.

Philippe

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 08:34:39 -0700

So is this essentially a request for review now, or a "nice to do  
later"?   We haven't initiated the reviews, and I just realized maybe  
we should already.  Philippe?

Lisa