IRC log of tagmem on 2006-04-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:00:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-irc
17:01:23 [EdRice]
Chair: Vincent
17:01:32 [EdRice]
Scribe: EdRice
17:01:41 [EdRice]
Regrets: Tim, Noah
17:02:00 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
17:02:00 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
17:02:03 [Zakim]
+Ht
17:02:56 [Norm]
ht, wrt xmlFunctions-34 do you concur that the ball wrt our draft is in your court?
17:03:06 [ht]
Yes, sigh.
17:03:10 [ht]
Mea culpa
17:03:59 [Vincent]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:03:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ed_Rice, Vincent, Norm, DanC, Ht
17:08:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.604.534.aaaa
17:08:09 [EdRice]
TOPIC: Administrative
17:08:26 [EdRice]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:08:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ed_Rice, Vincent, Norm, DanC, Ht, +1.604.534.aaaa
17:08:39 [DanC]
I'm OK to scribe 25 Apr
17:08:45 [EdRice]
Zakim +1.604.534.aaa is Dave
17:08:57 [EdRice]
Dan will scribe next week
17:09:00 [DanC]
Zakim, aaaa is Dave
17:09:00 [Zakim]
+Dave; got it
17:09:05 [EdRice]
no regrets for next week.
17:09:31 [EdRice]
Resolution: Minutes approved as-is from last week
17:10:05 [EdRice]
TOPIC: f2f meeting in october
17:10:19 [EdRice]
meeting in Vancouver, starting on the 4th.
17:11:00 [EdRice]
Tim and Noah were concerned about 2-3 day meeting length, but neither are on the call.
17:11:09 [DanC]
(I still prefer 2 days)
17:11:33 [EdRice]
ht: I can book late flights home.
17:11:55 [EdRice]
Norm: I have to leave early, so Friday needs to end early on Friday or I'll have to leave early.
17:12:09 [EdRice]
Norm: I'll follow Dan then on 2 day preferance.
17:12:45 [EdRice]
Ed: how about a two day meeting, we just work late if need be.
17:12:56 [Norm]
Working late would be fine by me
17:13:02 [EdRice]
Vincent: Lets confirm next week with the people who are not here today.
17:13:33 [EdRice]
TOPIC: Update on AC meeting[10] perparation
17:13:54 [Norm]
q+ to comment on the June f2f
17:14:00 [EdRice]
Vincent: Last week we decided to use our slot for a pannel discussions.
17:14:31 [EdRice]
Vincent: Steve was interested in my communication, but Steve declined getting the meeting running and be a moderator.
17:14:53 [EdRice]
Vincent: So, we're on the agenda with the topics, but we need to find someone else to moderate the session.
17:15:36 [EdRice]
Vincent: Any suggestions?
17:15:52 [EdRice]
Norm: Stuart Williams?
17:17:00 [EdRice]
general round of agreement, Vicent will contact to see if he'll be in town.
17:17:22 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
17:18:47 [EdRice]
ht: we could invite Ralph on the pannel as well.
17:19:10 [EdRice]
Dave: I havent seen an opinion from Ralph however, he may be a better moderator.
17:19:57 [EdRice]
Vincent: ok, I have a few names. I'll contact Mishai, Stewart and Ralph. Otherwise we may need more names so if you think of any please share via email.
17:20:12 [dorchard]
Ed, that wasn't I that mentioned Ralph. I think it was Dan.
17:20:37 [EdRice]
TOPIC: F2F meeting in June.
17:20:42 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-logistics.html
17:20:42 [DanC]
s/Dave: I/DanC: I/
17:20:51 [Vincent]
ack norm
17:20:51 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to comment on the June f2f
17:20:58 [EdRice]
Noah: I updated the logistics page to include possible hotels.
17:21:53 [EdRice]
TV and Tim are invited by Lord Jeffery Inn.
17:22:07 [EdRice]
Noah: June 12th I'll provide a dinner if you can attend.
17:22:37 [EdRice]
Noah: I'd suggest making your reservations sooner than later.
17:23:28 [Norm]
Tell Norm your flight schedules if your flying into BDL
17:23:51 [EdRice]
TOPIC: XmlFunctions-34
17:24:05 [EdRice]
Vincent: I put this on for TV but he's not on the phone.
17:24:25 [EdRice]
V: there are three pending actions, only one can be addressed since TV and Tim are not in.
17:24:47 [EdRice]
Vincent: ht can you update us on the draft finding?
17:24:51 [Norm]
Norm wrote -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jan/0011.html
17:25:03 [EdRice]
ht: This is stuck in my in-tray and I've been busy, it will likely be several week.
17:25:41 [EdRice]
Vincent: so our actions list remains the same for now.
17:25:55 [EdRice]
TOPIC: Security/Authentication
17:26:29 [EdRice]
Vincent: To continue our discussion from last week.
17:26:39 [EdRice]
Vincent: we talked about reviewing DIX.
17:27:29 [EdRice]
Dan: the context came from Lisa and she 'may be' an area director, but I havent heard yet.
17:27:55 [EdRice]
Dan: The area director solicits people to do the review, but when you do that review you should get back to the authors of the working groups directly
17:28:01 [EdRice]
Dan: not with Lisa.
17:28:45 [EdRice]
Dan: The authentication service - I doubt there would be much benefit for us to look into. Not really web architecture stuff per say.
17:28:52 [EdRice]
Dan: I'm more interested in DIX.
17:29:43 [EdRice]
Ed: DIX is very active.
17:29:53 [EdRice]
Dan: There are many documents, there is an update just today.
17:29:57 [DanC]
-> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dix/current/msg00596.html new DIX draft today
17:31:00 [EdRice]
Dan: should we create a TAG issue?
17:31:16 [EdRice]
Dan: Passwords in the clear should be a TAG issue.
17:31:36 [EdRice]
Dan: The DIX issue could be looked at in many ways.
17:32:25 [EdRice]
Vincent: We can make the passwords in the clear an issue at any time. Should we spend more time on the documents in front of us.
17:33:00 [EdRice]
Ed: I'll look at DIX.
17:33:57 [EdRice]
Vincent: ok, we have one reviewer for DIX. When you have a better view of the status, please present your point of view during a teleconferance.
17:34:14 [EdRice]
Vincent: should we make passwords in the clear a new TAG issue?
17:35:08 [EdRice]
Vincent: We need people who are committed to making progress on this.
17:35:42 [EdRice]
Dan: I dont think a short finding would be worth our time, we need to talk about alternatives etc.
17:36:14 [EdRice]
Ed: I can start working on it..
17:36:22 [DanC]
(I think it should be a TAG issue; I don't know that I can work on it soon. I think it's fine to have TAG issues sit around, acknowledged but not making lots of progress, for 18 months.)
17:36:45 [EdRice]
Vincnet: are there other opionions on creating a TAG issue on passwords in the clear?
17:37:00 [EdRice]
Vincent: I hear a few people in doing so.. any objections?
17:37:47 [EdRice]
Vincent: does anyone obstain? No one, so we have a concensus to open this as a new issue.
17:38:16 [EdRice]
RESOLUTION: We will open a new issue 52
17:38:21 [DanC]
clearTextPasswords-52
17:38:28 [EdRice]
Proposals for the name?
17:38:29 [DanC]
passwordsInTheClear-52
17:38:40 [EdRice]
+1 on passwordsInTheClear
17:38:41 [Norm]
passwordsInClear-52?
17:39:27 [EdRice]
Resolution: passwordsInTheClear-52 will be the issue name.
17:39:41 [EdRice]
Vincnet: Ed will begin drafting.
17:40:00 [EdRice]
Ed: I'll communicate this first to www-tag then start drafting..
17:40:08 [Norm]
s/Vincnet/Vincent/
17:40:15 [EdRice]
ACTION: Ed to communicate new issue and produce first draft finding.
17:40:50 [DanC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-usable-authentication/2006Apr/thread.html
17:41:07 [EdRice]
Dan: it might be worth noting, there was a workshop a while ago with a follow-up mailing list.
17:41:33 [EdRice]
Dan: need to explore mailing list in relation to TAG
17:42:07 [EdRice]
Dan: we did some work in the f2f in september which may be worth linking to.
17:42:20 [EdRice]
Vincent: I'll open the issue on the list.
17:42:32 [EdRice]
ACTION: Vincent to open the issue on the issues list.
17:42:58 [EdRice]
TOPIC: issue putMediaType-38[13]
17:43:31 [EdRice]
Vincent: Should we close this issue now that we've published the finding? There is no open action on this issue.
17:44:00 [EdRice]
Dan: are the specifics of PUT in the new finding?
17:44:11 [EdRice]
Dan: yep.. found it.
17:45:07 [DanC]
yes, putMediaType-38 is addressed to my satisfaction
17:45:12 [EdRice]
Dan: The procedure is to announce that we have resolved the issue and solicit any feedback?
17:45:17 [EdRice]
+1
17:45:28 [Norm]
+1
17:45:39 [EdRice]
HT: ok
17:45:51 [EdRice]
Vincent: I agree as well.
17:46:07 [EdRice]
RESOLUTION: We have resolved to close putMediaType-38
17:46:29 [EdRice]
TOPIC: namespaceState-48
17:46:56 [EdRice]
Vincent: We have published a finding in Jan. The only action still on the list is an action for Tim regarding the policy for creating new namespaces.
17:47:07 [EdRice]
Vincent: Tim is not here, but I see a new policy is being created.
17:47:34 [EdRice]
Vincent: Should we wait for this new document to be published before closing this issue.
17:47:55 [EdRice]
Dan: I dont remember what we wanted in the new version or not..
17:48:08 [EdRice]
Vincent: We wanted the W3C policy to be in alignment with our finding.
17:48:37 [EdRice]
Dan: I'm moderatly inclined to keep Tim's action open
17:49:00 [EdRice]
Dan: I know there has been some communication on this.
17:49:28 [EdRice]
Vincent: ok, so I agree we need Tim on the call before we can close this issue.
17:49:55 [EdRice]
Dan: It would also be nice if we could remember why we asked Tim to make a new version.
17:50:13 [EdRice]
Vincent: I'll look at the logs/minutes so we can have a more effective discussion next week.
17:51:06 [EdRice]
TOPIC: xmlChunk-44[18]
17:51:44 [EdRice]
Vincent: This is something that I dont know about at all. I understand the topic and I see that there is a draft, dated Sept 2004 by Norm. There is not much discussion regarding this.
17:51:56 [EdRice]
Norm: in summary;
17:52:26 [EdRice]
Norm: The question was: Shouldnt there be a standard way to compare 'chunks' of xml.
17:52:47 [EdRice]
Norm: the answer was there is not single right answer to this question...
17:53:11 [EdRice]
Norm: Timbl pushed back on that finding and asked if we could document 'a' right answer.
17:53:29 [EdRice]
Norm: There were some comments, but I never did incorporate those comments.
17:53:35 [DanC]
q+
17:54:02 [EdRice]
Norm: We just turned our attention to other things. I'm not sure what we should do next, I could incorporate those comments into the draft
17:54:14 [Vincent]
ack danc
17:54:28 [EdRice]
Norm: But we need to make sure that people understand we're producing 'a' way, and not an approved way.
17:56:36 [EdRice]
Dan: Does this draft corespond to xQuery?
17:56:55 [EdRice]
Norm: I suspect its reasonable close for two chunks of unvalidated content.
17:57:17 [EdRice]
Dan: A really nice appendix or two would be an implementation in xQuery or something.
17:57:36 [EdRice]
Norm: If the TAG asks me to revise this, I'd consider doing that.
17:57:52 [EdRice]
HT: I'm not sure, this may the top of a slippery slope
17:58:41 [EdRice]
ht: we have the infosec spec and we have the xpath/xquery data model which either is or isnt counter to the infoset
17:59:13 [EdRice]
ht: until we're prepared to tackle all of that I'm not sure that re-issue that finding with the narrow focus would be good.
17:59:25 [EdRice]
ht: I havent reviewed the finding however.
18:00:32 [EdRice]
Norm: no, I'm saying your application may have others that you may want to consider. There is no one right answer, even if there was one universal data model.
18:00:46 [EdRice]
ht: well, I guess I need to read the finding.
18:00:59 [Norm]
Sorry ht, I wasn't trying to send you off to the finding :-)
18:01:06 [DanC]
q+ to suggest 2 options that are OK by me: (a) leave it in the someday pile (b) ask I18N if it's an improvement worth spending effort on
18:02:39 [EdRice]
Vincent: The issue was raised by Tim so we should probably follow-up with Tim.
18:02:51 [DanC]
ack danc
18:02:51 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to suggest 2 options that are OK by me: (a) leave it in the someday pile (b) ask I18N if it's an improvement worth spending effort on
18:02:53 [Vincent]
ack danc
18:03:52 [EdRice]
Vincent: ok, I didnt feel it was urgent, it just hasnt been discussed so I put it on the agenda to get an update. Its clear there are not clear next steps right now.
18:04:22 [EdRice]
Vincent: ok, lets leave it for now.
18:05:05 [EdRice]
Norm: I'm happy to either update it or leave it on the to-do-list as a lower priority.
18:05:55 [EdRice]
TOPIC: urn-50
18:06:49 [EdRice]
ht: This is proceeding as a matter of priority. The write token is with me, I'm going to spend some time on it shortly and get it back to the group.
18:07:12 [EdRice]
Vincent: we talked about this two weeks ago, but no clear action was recorded on this.
18:07:32 [ht]
ht has left #tagmem
18:09:15 [EdRice]
Vincent: I'll add an action to HT on this to the issues list.
18:09:38 [EdRice]
Vincent: anything else?
18:09:48 [EdRice]
Vincnet: Meeting is adjourned..
18:09:51 [Zakim]
-DanC
18:09:52 [Zakim]
-Ht
18:09:53 [Zakim]
-Norm
18:09:54 [Zakim]
-Ed_Rice
18:09:56 [Zakim]
-Vincent
18:10:01 [EdRice]
RRSAgent, make logs public
18:10:12 [Zakim]
-Dave
18:10:13 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
18:10:14 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ed_Rice, Vincent, Norm, DanC, Ht, +1.604.534.aaaa, Dave
18:10:15 [EdRice]
RRSAgent, gnerate minutes
18:10:15 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'gnerate minutes', EdRice. Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:10:30 [EdRice]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
18:10:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-minutes.html EdRice
18:10:45 [EdRice]
Zakim, bye
18:10:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
18:10:50 [EdRice]
RRSAgent, bye
18:10:50 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-actions.rdf :
18:10:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ed to communicate new issue and produce first draft finding. [1]
18:10:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-irc#T17-40-15
18:10:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Vincent to open the issue on the issues list. [2]
18:10:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-irc#T17-42-32