[[ Vancouver availability; DanC and Philippe both not going to be there. ]]
Leslie: agenda bashing?
leslie: Sent note a month ago that there is a liaison submission tool (RFC 4052 and RFC 4053). bcp about liaison, relationship management, processes. We don't exchange that many formal liaison messages between W3C and IETF... but happy to talk about state of tool ...
plh: looked into RFC 4052/4053. seems like when you have liaison statement, you make it public on IETF web site ...
plh:Don't see any harm in noit doing this at this point. We'll avoid having to like into this for the moment.
leslie: e-mail address to which liaison statements sent. then manual intervention. tool: instantaneous posting. can more or less structure. not working out very well -- not everyone knows exactly who they are sending something to. ITU sent liaison to IETF, said it should go to ?. without e-mail addresses ...
plh: I believe we don't need for that from w3c point of view
timbl: agree
leslie: debugging process by this point
plh: If W3C ought to do this from the IETF point of view, we can certainly reconsider it.
danc: state of the art at W3C is web page. the W3C Liaisons "tool" is http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison.
leslie: process?
danc: managed by comm team. Before AC meeting -- "this guy was liaison to XYZ and is now dead, who is replacing him?"
leslie: Problem that we had is that for vaguely specified recipients / senders, bottom of pile
danc: we don't even have that -- just put contact info in there
leslie: dan, did you delete any action items when you commented?
[[ leslie goes through done action items ]]
s/redraw/withdraw/
<DanC> ACTION: [DONE] DanC to arrange bridge for Monday, October 24, 3pm [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/24-ietf-minutes.html#action01]
<DanC> ACTION: [DONE] DanC to ask for "ok to archive everything I send to list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/24-ietf-minutes.html#action02]
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to look into adding "note well..." notice to webdav, uri lists [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/24-ietf-minutes.html#action03]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/w3c-ietf-coord/2005Oct/0005.html
<DanC> . ACTION: DanC to comment on URI guidelines about not doing DAV: again
leslie: withdraw action item on URI guidelines
action ...
... action timeframe might have passed ...
DanC: action might have been overtaken
<scribe> ACTION: Philippe to check with Martin about the status of file [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/24-ietf-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Philippe to follow up on the p3p header registry [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/24-ietf-minutes.html#action05]
<DanC> public_minutes ++ :)
<plh-ietf> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http-05.txt
Philippe didn't do it, Mark Nottingham did
plh: p3p header part of document, listed on IANA web site ...
leslie: any other action items?
danc: tim, introduce this one?
<DanC> [[
<DanC> Earlier this month Londoner Daniel Cuthbert was fined under the Computer
<DanC> Misuse Act for doing what almost every website advises, checking to see
<DanC> whether the company he was dealing with online really were who they
timbl: somebody got fined for HTTP GET on something/../../
<DanC> claimed to be.
<DanC> ]]
<DanC> -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4365280.stm
timbl: message to TAG list ...
<DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Oct/0020.html
timbl: web architecture says: anyone can do any
GET, and it doesn't imply anything ...
... can't commit ...
... in this case, was deemed to be a hacking attempt ...
... anything in the IETF about this one?
leslie: Don't think has seen this...
... Scott?
scott: nothing
john: nothing
... aware, but haven't seen in IETF context ...
timbl: TAG to raise awareness for architectural principle?
john: at least as interesting an IAB discussion topic as an IETF one
leslie: facts?
dan: that was TAG's problem -- background
timbl: pointing to .../0020.html above. Search
for "tsunami hacker" ...
... a bunch of stuff has been written up ...
danc: checked google news, but there was less than you'd expect
leslie: two things to understand -- one is
scale/scope of this ...
... if you take it to something we'd consider a logical conclusion, it's
scary ...
... if we wanted to make something out of this, ...
... not averse to working with you on this, or saying something about it as
well ...
... evolution of Internet from network of hosts to next voice carrier network
...
... in the sense that if you do something you're not instructed to do you do
something wrong
timbl: deep linking ...
... trouble with the law is, "the following link is unauthorized" + click on
it => liability ...
leslie: When you try debugging a broken web site, it gets scary
timbl: this guy had entered credit card information, not gotten receipt
<DanC> (well, I'm not sure it's so clear... I've heard other stories... like the guy said he was cracking...)
[[ more discussion about facts in this case ]]
<knitbot> well, there ya go
leslie: It would be useful if we could find
more information, share it, find something to go forth with
... IAB's role ...
<DanC> (tlr, re minuting, the ritual is: draft minutes go to w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org ; after 7 days of no objections, they go public to public-ietf-w3c@w3.org )
<knitbot> (and final copy e-mailed to w3c-coord
<knitbot> )
<knitbot> (sorry about the fast talking)
danc: xml patch / rui
<DanC> tlr: do the folks at the patch BOF know about Xupdate?
scott: they're looking for solutions
<DanC> (I asked tlr to forward his message before I read it, just in case it merited discussion)
tlr: Dave Raggett wondered about relationship with remoteui, and http://xmldb-org.sourceforge.net/xupdate
scott: they're meeting for the first time, if you have solutions, that would be helpful
plh: Just sent approval request for the xenc media type to the IESG. Does it look ok?
scott: looks fine
plh: ok, have 3 other media types at the same time for XQuery, XQueryX, and XSLT.
scott: Send them, will do serial processing. We'll probably look at them at the end of November.
plh: not concerned with time line, more concerned with acceptance
scott: looks fine ... if W3C specs are stable, there shouldn't be any issues ...
leslie: spam -- scott?
scott: nothing to add
<DanC> (ah yes... DKIM.. that was the acronym I was looking for...)
leslie: Vancouver -- DKIM BOF in Paris ...
... looking at attempting to add to mail ability to validate sending MTAs
...
... BOF itself didn't go too far ...
... clarity in terms of what solution was provided ...
<timbl> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/
leslie: people weren't able to give a problem
...
... another bof with new chairs ...
scott: Still called DKIM. Describe what they
are protecting against ...
... BOF focus -- take look at threat assessment, make sure that what they
charter themselves to do ...
... is responsive to threat assessment ...
<knitbot> threat assess
leslie: next ietf in March
[[ calendaring discussion ]]
<DanC> do I hear Wed 15 Mar? at which time?
RESOLUTION: PLH to chair next meeting
RESOLUTION: Next meeting Mon Feb 13 2006, 2pm Eastern
<scribe> ACTION: plh to book the bridge [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/24-ietf-minutes.html#action06]
<DanC> (I set alarms at T-7days and T-1 day when I chair. It doesn't always help. :)
yes, plh