W3C/IETF meeting - March 5, 2013
- Philippe Le Hegaret
- Alissa Cooper
- Stephen Farrrell
- Sean Turner
- Barry Leiba
- Mark Nottingham
- Julian Reschke
- John Klensin
- Pete Resnick
Regrets: Thomas Roessler
Philippe: what is this BOF and how does it relate to the ECMA/TC 39
Mark: Doug Crockford wrote an informational RFC to define JSON. It's
used by a whole lot of standards-track specs.
Barry: the ECMA document points to the RFC as the definitive reference
Mark: many complain that referencing ECMA since it's too specific to
Barry: there is consensus on the list to minimize changes in 4627bis.
Mark: yes, making large changes will be difficult.
… and is a bad idea.
### Update IPR Policy BOF
Barry: there is a draft with the proposed changes. It makes
clarifications. The principal changes are clarifying oral statements,
lurker disclosure responsibilities, etc. ie closing up some of the
holes. I expect a lot of discussion about this.
### HTTP auth
Sean: It's scheduled to be a BOF right now, but the charter is out for
external external review and unless there are objections the hope is
that BOF will be a WG by Tuesday morning. W3C needs to speak up
before Tuesday of the IETF week.
Barry: the scope is pretty constrained to address 5 proposals. basic and
digest will be cleaned up.
Sean: I'll be pushing to keep the changes minimal to the basic and
digest draft(s). Note that the draft(s) updating/obsoleting
basic/digest will be Standards Track while the others will be
### video codec charter
Barry: nothing happening next week on this front.
### Possible Registry for W3C/IETF draft for algorithm URIs
Don's draft that'd obsolete 4051 and is already referenced from some
W3C note (can't recall name sorry)
Sean: RFC 4051 has been out there for a while. the key thing is that
W3C is about to publish XML Sig and it needs a stable
reference. Looking for input on how a registry might be more
flexible. Would it be a problem for W3C to link to an IANA registry
instead of an RFC?
Plh: Not that I can think so.
Stephen: slight concern about registry approach since Don's draft has
teeny bits of specification in it (e.g. base64 encode output of hash
fnc.) so I'm not sure that a registry actually saves so much. But
maybe chat in Orlando.
JcK; FWIW, nothing prevents including those bits of specification in a
registry either. It is just a matter of getting the definition right
if we go down that path.
Stephen: I think I'd be even more concerned with specification text
ending up in IANA registries.
JcK. And I should have said "making sure we understand the conditions by
which it gets there" A registry is ultimately nothing more than a list
of "stuff" with IANA acting as a very careful clerk/administrator
about what goes in that list. Better to discuss in Orlando, but I'm
having trouble imagining a substantive problem that can't easily be
Sean: I really don't want to upset the apple cart and want to make
sure they can get a stable reference for their final standard.
### media types
Plh: I need to better setup how W3C handles mediatypes but it's
difficult to track media types at the IETF level.
Barry: we can talk with Michelle about this for an update on the
Sean: Can the datatracker.ietf.org be used?
Barry: IANA has their own tracking mechanism.
### STREWS EU project (Stephen / Thomas)
Stephen: little just-starting EU project involving W3C and Trinity
College Dublin, a fine little place where he sometimes works. idea is
to link security researchers and standard bodies, ie IETF and
W3C. We're inviting folks to join an advisory body/mailing list. We'll
start with case studies, first is about rtcweb. Feel free to ask
Stephen/Thomas questions if any.
### Content Protection/DRM
Stephen: there is something in common with the DNT work as well. It's
specifying a mechanism that is by nature incomplete. How do you get to
decide to continue?
Plh: it's still in the early stages.
Stephen: Ah. Thanks. I hadn't got that it was at such an early stage
from reading various sites etc.
### JSON calendar and contacts formats
Pete: the chartering announcement will go out today. the group will
work quickly. A few IETF wgs will depend on the output. it's a
vcard/ical format in JSON. We'd like to get potential consumers,
collecting requirements within 2-3 weeks, completing work within 2-3
months. if folks are interested, they need to come up on board very
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|