W3C prev: Jun 2002
regrets: Scott Bradner
Some problems connecting to the W3C teleconference facilities were noted.
The emerging trend is to hold these meetings prior to each IETF meeting.
The 56th IETF meeting, Spring 2003, is scheduled for March 16-21, 2003 in San Francisco, CA.
In the interest of holding this meeting early enough to allow it to affect travel plans, we
RESOLVED: to meet again Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 12:00:00 PM Boston time (1700Z).
Continued from the June meeting.
Freed's action is done:
Larry Masinter Jul 20 2002
Masinter noted that Roy Fielding has started editing a new draft, maintaining an issues list, using uri@w3.org for public discussion, and isn't sure a working group is needed. He issued an internet draft (draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-00, announced 29Oct); no comments so far.
Daigle recalled that the origin of this agendum was a divergence of views on URIs between W3C and IETF...
Masinter observed that most of the philosophy stuff is happening in the W3C TAG, and that Fielding is participating there.
Connolly noted the TAG issue IRIEverywhere-27, and said he was still trying to decide whether it's appropriate to address IRI issues at this stage. Masinter and Dürst explained that no, IRIs and URIs were on separate tracks: this update of the URI specification is only intended to address minor details like IPV6 addresses; it is intended to recycle at IETF Draft Standard, while the IRI specification is headed for Proposed Standard.
Mankin asked about the process of connecting the W3C IRI work with the IETF. Dürst explained that the IRI document (currently draft-duerst-iri-02.txt) is an individual submission to the IETF, on behalf of the W3C I18N WG; he has discussed this with Freed, and expects to do a normal IETF last call prior to Proposed Standard.
Daigle mentioned an unfinished conversation about the IRI specification; some reviewers found it clearly addressed the XML and HTTP cases, but didn't clearly address LDAP cases. Dürst acknowledged that this conversation was unfinished.
Mankin asked whether last call was the right mechanism for this discussion; Daigle replied that she intended to bring this to the attention of the IAB, after which the next step should be more clear.
Masinter noted that the discussion venue for IRI draft is www-international@w3.org (open list, with archive), while the venue for Fielding's URI draft is uri@w3.org.
The possibility of a short-lived URI working group was discussed; Masinter offered to chair a meeting at the 56th IETF in San Francisco in March.
Dürst asked if W3C working groups could be notified of IETF last calls; Freed offered to forward the IRI last call to any addresses supplied by Dürst. Dürst asked if Freed was the IETF Area Director for the IRI specification; Freed replied that no, Patrick Fahlstrom is.
Mankin asked about the status of draft-kindberg-tag-uri. Mealling explained that there was some earlier discussion of whether it should be a URI scheme or a URN namespace. Masinter reported a decision to take out the URN namespace, but Mealling observed that the current draft still has it, so there's a version outstanding.
As to Patrik Faltstrom's call for comments before informational RFC publication, Connolly noted his comments of 29 Oct.
Continued from the June meeting.
ACTION Freed: pursue update to RFC2048. (with ideas such as std. facet, provisional registry) draft out for review (not Internet Draft) in yokohama timeframe.
Freed reported sending a draft just prior to joining the teleconference.
ACTION Reagle: send his understanding of how to get a W3C language registered as a media type.
Reagle gave some background; he observed earlier agreement that the technical material regarding a media type should be in the W3C specification; for IETF review, an internet draft that just points to the W3C spec would be issued. He tried this for the XENC specification. Freed reported that the RFC editor raised concerns of the form "why publish these stubs?" Freed noted the std. facet idea from his RFC2048 update draft. Reagle asked about the registrations currently in progress which precede this update. Freed offered to negotiate with the RFC editor for short-term issues.
Discussion of various issues around registration of media types originating from bodies other than the IETF continued; in particular, the extent to which review of security considerations could be delegated. Freed offered to put this on the agenda of the upcoming IESG face-to-face meeting. Costs and benefits of facet-by-organization approach were discussed.
Berners-Lee aked about the possibility of a provisional registry. Masinter asked whether that was motivated by the risk of collisions or the desire to look up not-yet-registered media types. Berners-Lee replied that both concerns motivated the idea, though look-up was more of a practical issue and collisions was more of a formality. A list of "intent to register"s with time-out seemed appealing to several of the participants.
We RESOLVED that the std. facet was not worth pursuing.
ACTION Freed: revise proposal, send to w3c-policy, review by Daigle et al.
Reagle asked about the XENC media type in particular; he asked for clarification about a tracking mechanism mentioned.
Mankin referred the participants to an IETF data tracker but clarified that it's distinct from the ticketing mechanism Reagle was referred to.
Aside: Berners-Lee expressed appreciation of the data tracker, but noted that it does notuse GET where it should; Mankin noted that the IESG did not design the tracker.
Reagle was able to find the status of the XENC media type using the tracker.
Freed acknowledged that the SMIL media type registration is pending.
Masinter suggested that internet drafts from W3C working groups could be named draft-w3c-*.
After some discussion of authorization, we RESOLVED: that w3c should do its internet drafts as draft-w3c-* . W3C should get an IETF Area Director's OK.
The meeting was adjourned at 18:41:05Z.