<masinter> ScribeNick: masinter
Date: 13 August 2009
AWOL: JK and Raman
Noah: getting nervous about degree of focus in the last few weeks. Fair number of overdue action items. Pattern seems to be to take actions but still come out overdue. Haven't been a lot (except for masinter issues) that merits discussion. Concern about doing real work in FTF. No teleconference next week, but in two weeks. Jonathan will scribe we hope on 27th, otherwise HT.
... Reviewing agenda, most administrative stuff doesn't merit discussion.
masinter: Minutes say suggestion was "meet with IETF in Anaheim", but "anaheim" was just one possibility
<scribe> ScribeNick: noah
masinter: Problem is that neither origin headers nor sniffing is in HTTPbis
... Not clear what progress is being made at IETF
NM: What do you think TAG should do?
masinter: Not sure. Seems W3C specs are doing things which should be in IETF specs, but they aren't being taken up there.
DanC: Well, we formally split out some things so IETF could pick them up, now they seem to be taking those as out of scope.
<masinter> DanC: not a deliverable for HTTPbis. There's an item in their issue list.
DanC: My understanding is that the sniffing draft occasionally gets discussed on their email, but it's not a formal deliverable. The do have an issue, but not sure what scope or decision was. Now closed. Cites the draft.
masinter: Separating administrative and technical. Admin: there are some cross org coordination issues. Technically: there is a proposal for a security mechanism...(digression into scope of discussion, is it sniffing-only or origin too?)
... Suggest I take an action to find out what's happening with sniffing, and report back.
DanC: My understanding of coordination on HTTP is; we (W3C) can draft proposals, and they review and, we hope, adopt
masinter: Saying it's not in scope doesn't mean work stops; it means need general IETF approval vs. only working-group level
DanC: Interesting that you said "you can ask a working group for review"
masinter: I think some of that happened. That's why I want an action to track down what happened.
DanC: Hmm. Maybe reviews don't necessarily result in 1 bit answer?
<masinter> Re: Update on issue 155 (Content Sniffing)
<masinter> ... on email@example.com
<masinter> ... issue was re-closed
<masinter> The authors of the content-type sniffing draft asked for a change to HTTP
<masinter> a change was made which the WG thought would address their request, althought not exactly what they wanted
<masinter> which would allow ocntent-type sniffing to be processed
<DanC> (I find a few messages with that subject, larry; give me the date?)
<masinter> i'll put in links in minutes
<DanC> this is part of that thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/thread.html#msg485
<masinter> email from mnot: " I made the proposed change (taking out that paragraph) with
<masinter> ... http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/663 "
DanC: And the actual change is?
masinter: I >think< the following got removed:
... Note that neither the interpretation of the data type of a message nor the behaviors caused by it are defined by HTTP; this
... potentially includes examination of the content to override any indicated type ("sniffing")"
<masinter> I'm not sure though, will check and report
<DanC> I'm pretty puzzled by "As it stands, sniffing is not prohibited" -- mnot 5 Aug http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0473.html
<scribe> ACTION: Larry to investigate and report to TAG on IETF progress on sniffing features in HTTPbis
<trackbot> Created ACTION-297 - Investigate and report to TAG on IETF progress on sniffing features in HTTPbis [on Larry masinter - due 2009-08-20].
masinter: It just says what the messages imply: Content-type: image/gif means it's a gif; doesn't describe endpoint behavior
... When implementations disagree with specifications, do you make their behavior normative, or do you ...(Larry's phone is too noisy)....
DanC: Disappointing to me. If I want to build a bug database with buggy XML (scribe presumes as something like text/plain), he can read the whole HTTP spec and not be warned it won't work.
... I'm reading here in MNot's 5 Aug message that sniffing is not prohibited.
<DanC> (I meant buggy XML...)
<masinter> i think this is an interesting general question about implementation behavior vs. normative specs
<masinter> the data point is that HTTP-WG came up with a conclusion for a point of view that we should consider
masinter: I wasn't proposing to solve general problem first. I noted HTTP group made a compromise: protocol is unchanged, but sniffing is OK anyway. Suggested we check whether we can learn from the compromise.
<DanC> close action-297
<trackbot> ACTION-297 Investigate and report to TAG on IETF progress on sniffing features in HTTPbis closed
* Get a review from Larry of his informal discussions about IRIs at the recent IETF meeting. The specific concern is "around making sure that no host name containing a % or containing raw non-ascii is ever passed to a DNS resolver".
Larry sent this email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Aug/0008.html
"I had several discussions about the IRI draft and a "bar bof"
meeting, and I can give a quick update on the status and next
steps. The concern is around making sure that no host name
containing a % or containing raw non-ascii is ever passed to
a DNS resolver.
masinter: We a had a meeting. Lots of people from application area, some from internationalization of domain names
<masinter> The IDN working group did internationalized domain names
<masinter> IDNA is focusing on how to bring this up to application layer.
masinter: Problem is that method chosen by IDN for representing non-ASCII in Domain names is different from what's used for that purpose in IRIs
<masinter> URIs use %XX hex encoding of UTF8
<masinter> IRI to URI uses that
masinter: DNS chose different algorithm.
... Concern is to make sure that %hex-encoded UTF-8 identifiers never wind up in DNS resolution requests.
... Even though such registrations seem to be disallowed, the protocol doesn't obviously prohibit them, causing both security and administrative concerns.
... One proposal is that IRI -> URI resolution change, but that seems not practical.
<masinter> second set of issues are in HTML5 -> IRI document, some things got left out that i need to address one way or another.
<masinter> see firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list for issues.
DanC: Short version is: there are some technical issues you want to figure out how to address?
masinter: Yes. Some progress has been made on the procedural issue, though. No pushback on putting the Web Address stuff in the IRI document. So, that's good.
DanC: HTML5 group has a proposal to close pertinent issue because text has been moved. Makes me nervous.
masinter: Issue needs to stay open in HTML5 until technical issues are resolved, IMO.
<trackbot> ACTION-265 -- Dan Connolly to work with Larry, Henry to frame technical issues relating to the vairous overlapping specs. about URIs, IRIs and encoding on the wire -- due 2009-07-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<masinter> next step on IRI-everywhere will be to recommend W3C working groups use IRIs, not LEIRIs or Web Addresses.
<masinter> date should be : wait until IRI document is published
<DanC> . ACTION: Larry notify the TAG of the next IRI draft
masinter: Suggest that when next version of IRI is published, the TAG review it.
<scribe> ACTION: Larry notify the TAG of the next IRI draft
<trackbot> Created ACTION-298 - Notify the TAG of the next IRI draft [on Larry masinter - due 2009-08-20].
ACTION-298 Due 15 Sept
<trackbot> ACTION-298 Notify the TAG of the next IRI draft due date now 15 Sept
<DanC> close action-265
<trackbot> ACTION-265 Work with Larry, Henry to frame technical issues relating to the vairous overlapping specs. about URIs, IRIs and encoding on the wire closed
<scribe> Pending actions: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\" stuff in HTTP spec?
masinter: In Stockholm, Mark Nottingham first offered to do a draft, then suggested withdrawing plan for update. That's OK me.
DanC: Why did we want to do this?
masinter: Let me get pertinent section of document...
<masinter> ... Most HTTP responses include an entity which contains information for
<masinter> interpretation by a human user. Naturally, it is desirable to supply
<masinter> the user with the "best available" entity corresponding to the
<masinter> request. Unfortunately for servers and caches, not all users have
<masinter> the same preferences for what is "best," and not all user agents are
<masinter> equally capable of rendering all entity types. For that reason, HTTP
<masinter> has provisions for several mechanisms for "content negotiation" --
<masinter> the process of selecting the best representation for a given response
<masinter> when there are multiple representations available.
NM: What here matters for this discussion?
masinter: That was the original conception when conneg was introduced years ago. In practice, it's now used for lots of other things.
... Sometimes, for example, CSS media queries is used to select best rep. That's not in HTTP.
... We seem to be moving toward "HTTP is used for transporting content; if there's variability desired, the initial bit of content is used to make subsequent decision."
DanC: We seem to have closed ISSUE-53, and perhaps have neglected to announce it.
<masinter> In practice other things are used instead of Conneg for the purpose for which Conneg is used, while Conneg is used for other things
<masinter> device characteristics, etc. etc.
NM: Hmm, as chair am I supposed to announce closings.
DanC: Ian did, not sure it's a formal responsibility. We used to wait for non-concurrences from community.
... I'm OK closing the action.
NM: leaving this one pending review until Tim can take a look.
Followup with Mark Nottingham and Lisa D. regarding Adam Barth's sniffing draft.
NM: You did that in Stockholm.
close ACTION -261
<trackbot> ACTION-261 Followup with Mark Nottingham and Lisa D. regarding Adam Barth's sniffing draft closed
<masinter> reported in email
Message from Larry: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jul/0043.html (member-only)
NM: Ashok, is this what you need?
AM: Yes. Have they responded.
... Larry, you asked them to send comments, did they?
masinter: Don't know.
NM: Note Dan took action last week ACTION-295
Monitor geolocation response to IETF GEOPRIV comments on last call and report to the TAG
masinter: There's a message from the IETF Chair dated 10 August as formal comment on the draft.
<trackbot> ACTION-276 Take GeoPriv discussion with IETF forward in person in July closed
masinter: Just looking at this. It's a formal request from the IETF chair to the W3C. Mailed to public geo location working group.
<DanC> (IETF chair?! I heard there was something from the GEOPRIV WG chair...)
NM: I think Dan can make sure the right things happen.
ACTION-289 Tell Tim about HTML Reading plan [trivial]
NM: Talked to Amy
<trackbot> ACTION-289 Tell Tim about HTML Reading plan [trivial] closed
<trackbot> ACTION-290 Write to Geolocation WG saying "we have concern that the spec does not say enough user privacy" closed
<trackbot> ACTION-264 -- Ashok Malhotra to draft agenda item for upcoming telcon discussion of geolocation and privacy -- due 2009-08-04 -- OPEN
Draft agenda item for upcoming telcon discussion of geolocation and privacy
<trackbot> Sorry... closing ACTION-2643 failed, please let sysreq know about it
<trackbot> ACTION-264 Draft agenda item for upcoming telcon discussion of geolocation and privacy closed
<trackbot> ACTION-273 -- Ashok Malhotra to carry forward framing issues around Archicture of APIs, with help from JK and masinter -- due 2009-08-11 -- OPEN
Carry forward framing issues around Archicture of APIs, with help from JK and masinter
NM: I would like to see progress
<masinter> ScribeNick: masinter
ashok: happening with API working group, expects progress next week
nm: would like to get this framed up in time for Face to Face
... we've put a few issues on the table, what are the technical issues, is this something W3C should be doing ... would like a framing that would underlie discussion for the next several months
Ashok: they would like a general 'hook' for privacy and security, and they're thinking as a general way of getting those facilities.
... and there is a 'widget' URI scheme they want us to look at
... haven't done the homework on this so far.
nm: change due date?
ashok: wants to leave it open
nm: but it is overdue
action-273 due august 25
<trackbot> ACTION-273 Carry forward framing issues around Archicture of APIs, with help from JK and masinter due date now august 25
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask if we announced that the generic resources issue is closed
<noah> ScribeNick: noah
masinter: I was hoping for something concrete from Ashok, in the spirit of what I did for metadata, I.e framing the issues
NM: Me too
masinter: Are you unable or unwilling, Ashok
AM: There are parts you are better at.
NM: Please do the whole framing, calling on others where you need to
masinter: Please give me an outline
ACTION-273 Due 25 August
<trackbot> ACTION-273 Carry forward framing issues around Archicture of APIs, with help from JK and masinter due date now 25 August
<masinter> action 283 due 25 August
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 283
<masinter> action-283 due 25 August
<trackbot> ACTION-283 Update document on version identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion due date now 25 August
<masinter> nm: please update actions so they're not all overdue
NM: We are adjourned