Subject: Next W3C/IETF call scheduling

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:12:18 -0500

IETF 86 is approaching and Thomas and I have a list of items (json bof,
ipr, http auth, video codec, media types).

Are folks available in the next 3 weeks? If yes, I'll set up a doodle. 

Philippe

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:27:50 -0500

> ipr, http auth, video codec, media types).

Yep.  Are you guys going to be in Orlando?

> Are folks available in the next 3 weeks? If yes, I'll set up a doodle.

Next week is completely out for me, but the two weeks after that are OK.

Barry

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:58:40 +1100

The week before IETF I'll be in London; don't know if that helps or hurts.

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:01:41 +0000

Emails are good reminders sometimes:-)

I'm mostly ok next few weeks. Do setup a doodle.

S

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:27:43 -0500

--On Friday, February 15, 2013 17:12 -0500 Philippe Le Hegaret
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> IETF 86 is approaching and Thomas and I have a list of items
> (json bof, ipr, http auth, video codec, media types).

As a co-author of the relevant spec, I've been operating under
the assumption that we no longer have major outstanding issues
about media types.  If that is not true, I'd like to hear about
it, in detail, enough before the call that I (and, to the extent
necessary, Barry and Pete) have useful things to say.

   john

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:38:12 +0000

Hiya,

> ipr, http auth, video codec, media types).

On agenda - could we add drm or whatever is the term-de-jour? I'm
wondering what's up in w3c there given recent reports related I
guess to [1].

I'm not so much interested in commenting on developments, more
in understanding what and perhaps why. If its possible and makes
sense I'd also be interested in any views as to how that might
be similar to or different from DNT.

But if folks think that inappropriate or impractical for a call,
I'm fine with constraining the topic or trying to chat about
it in Orlando if the right people will be there, or whatever
else makes sense.

Ta,
S.

[1]
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html

---

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:43:38 +0100

Mostly around, please set up a doodle.
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C <[email-masked]> (@roessler)

---

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:42:50 -0500

> Yep.  Are you guys going to be in Orlando?

I'll be there. Thomas sends his regrets.

Philippe

---

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:44:18 -0500

> wondering what's up in w3c there given recent reports related I

Sure.

> be similar to or different from DNT.

My list now contains
 json bof, ipr, http auth, video, media types, drm, dnt

Philippe

---

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:48:16 -0500

> necessary, Barry and Pete) have useful things to say.

At this point, I do not believe this is a issue about the specification
itself but most probably about its implementations on the W3C and IETF
sides.

I'm getting reports that the current email system makes the process
prone to failures. It's difficult to track the status on our side and I
had one case where the email never reached me.

Philippe

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:42:51 -0500

--On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 16:48 -0500 Philippe Le
Hegaret <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> about media types.  If that is not true, I'd like to hear
>> about it, in detail, enough before the call that I (and, to
>> the extent necessary, Barry and Pete) have useful things to
>> say.
> 
> At this point, I do not believe this is a issue about the
> specification itself but most probably about its
> implementations on the W3C and IETF sides.
> 
> I'm getting reports that the current email system makes the
> process prone to failures. It's difficult to track the status
> on our side and I had one case where the email never reached
> me.

Ok.  Not anything I can do anything about unless there are far
more specifics.   Pete and Barry, would it be useful to set up a
call between Philippe and Michelle to see if we can get to the
bottom of this before more time is wasted on operational
disconnects and/or vague descriptions of problems and concerns?

    best,
    john

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:44:28 -0500

> disconnects and/or vague descriptions of problems and concerns?

The first thing for me to do (which I'll do when I see Michelle in
Orlando; I have a few things to talk with her about) is find out what
the status is of the plan to make the IANA tracking information
available to the requestors, so they can easily watch the status of
their requests.

b

---

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:34:13 +0100

> json bof, ipr, http auth, video, media types, drm, dnt

+ json calendar and contacts formats