IETF/W3C
1 Nov 2006

Convene, review agenda

Plan next meeting

DanC: IETF turns. I nominate Ted?

Ted: My term ends in March...

Resolution: Ted will chair

DanC: time and date?

Tim: same time on a Wednesday before next IETF meeting?

68th IETF - Prague, Czech Republic
(March 18 - 23, 2007)

DanC Proposed: 7 Mar 2007 3:30p Boston time?

<timbl> http://geneva.isoc.org/events/ ?

<knitbot> http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php ?

<timbl> http://geneva.isoc.org/events/excel/eventreport.php

ACTION: Leslie to review IETF planning calendars e.g. http://geneva.isoc.org/events/excel/eventreport.php http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar/index.php [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/01-ietf-minutes.html#action01]

RESOLVED: to meet again 7 Mar 2007 3:30p Boston time, Ted Hardie to chair

Ted: we will use Jabber and I will provide the bridge.

linking to BCP 47

Philippe: BCP 47 should point to 4646 and 4647. Right now, it is a concatenation. Can we have a page instead?

Leslie: the initial proposal is to provide headliner text clarifying it is a concatenation. The same issue arises for multi-document STDs, so a broader solution may be coming.

Philippe: sounds good.

Resolved.

HTTP - bringing it forward, patent terms, current situation with authors

Tim: Roy Fielding was concerned that a draft was published recapitulating his text, but without his name on it.

Philippe: His name has been restored.

<DanC> the author situation is resolved to my satsifaction. See draft -01 of 23-Oct-2006

Tim: why Roy wasn't aware of this?

<timbl> Bar-BOF at the last IETF ... no WG can be formed tll real BOF at IETF. meanwhile, individuals can publish suggestions

Lisa: unofficial BOF for HTTP at the last IETF. There is a group to try to form a WG. Until they have an official BOF and are successful, they can't have a WG. We encouraged the individuals to put a new draft. It is not my intent to revise a new HTTP spec with a new number for the moment.

Philippe: Tim, we're involved in this through Yves...

Tim: Since HTTP is a critical part of the Web, W3C has concerns about the IPR situation applying to RFC 2616. Without having actual knowledge of a patent that would apply to HTTP 1.1, we're afraid that HTTP 1.1, as it currently stands or in a new revision, isn't be protected enough against patents out there, and this might come back and bites us later.

Ted: the IETF mechanism to handle this is controlled by the WG's understanding of the need to limit new items included to those where the IPR situation has no known issues. In addition, if anyone has knowledge of an IPR issue against the RFC, they should do a disclosure and the WG can then act on it as necessary.

Ted: very likely to have the BOF in March in Prague. it's under consideration

update on the Web Security Context Working Group http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/

Thomas: follow-up to the security workshop we held in March.

14/15 November 2006,
Initial face-to-face meeting, New York, USA.

Thomas: around 20 participants in the WG. first f2f in NYC November 15. if you think we're missing participants, let me know. there has been discussion around doing xml signature 1.1, to fix the c14n issue. some combinaison of IPR between W3C and IETF. which area director will be around to help on this? In particular security area director.

Ted: i'm not standing for reappointment.

Ted: security area director situation is unknown yet. Russ Housley agreed to stand for reappointment.

<lisa> Sam is very interested in the topic anyway.

Thomas: what happened to the follow-up from Montreal in DIX?

Lisa: we got a request for a BOF on attribute exchange.

<DanC> (er... I'm confused... I thought a DIX BOF did happen, and I've seen requirements drafts)

Lisa: Attribute Exchange' as a standalone topic was not discussed on a mailing list, and no proposed charter, ie nothing to backup a BOF. Not ready to be brought to the IETF.

<lisa> latest post on http://blog.commerce.net/, A Skeptic's View of Identity 2.0

<timbl> [dix] DIX BOF Meeting Materials

Attribute Exchange

Lisa:In Houston there was a DIX BOF, then one merged Web authentication BOF combining two BoF proposals in Montreal. Then the guys who proposed the DIX BOF joined the OpenID effort so haven't pursued more BOFs or a WG on DIX — and the OpenID effort is currently not part of the IETF community. Right now, the OpenID guys are planning to go a long way without official involvement from IETF security experts.

Lisa: To try to clarify what I was saying about the 'meta-request' for a BOF, the only BoF inquiry we received related to identity for San Diego was on the topic of *attribute* exchange. That is, the inquiry was about having a BoF to talk about a standard for exchanging attributes about identities — the absence of a standard for exchanging the identities themselves. It's not inconceivable to have an abstraction layer for attribute exchange, or a separate protocol to use once identity had been established, but we just didn't see discussion on doing that independently, or at least enough to justify encouraging the BoF inquiry.

media type registration; where is text/n3?

Tim: Tim sent some mail to get text/n3. What happened to it?

Ted: where?

Tim: see Application for MIME Media Type

Tim: the script above gives you back a number.

<timbl> 5004

Ted: a different process for SDO than for individual/company

How to Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Specification

Tim: text/n3 doesn't have any standard status. I'd like to reserve it.

<DanC> (registration of this mime type is a CR exit criterion for SPARQL, currently. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/crq349 )

Ted: you could do that, but we will need an internet draft. Procedures for registering MIME Types can be found in [RFC4288],[RFC4289]. The ones linked from Application for MIME Media Type are deprecated.

Ted: the registration depends on the use. we could reserve it and it can be changed later. it's much better if those specs don't change. as long as there is a version spec, we shouldn't have a problem for it.

Tim: it's important to know which version you refer to at any time, this still allows changes.

Ted: if you point to the previous one, you still need to be ok.

Mark: if you want to be in the standard tree, like text/, this takes more time.

Tim: my concern is the system isn't clear.

<timbl> text/rdf+n3 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3

Leslie: this seems to fall into a general category of things to clean
... if somebody writes a note about this, I can champion it in the rigth places.

Ted: as long as I have a formal w3c publication (to be defined by W3C) or an internet draft, I can move it forward.

<DanC> tim, then you'd be in the http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype process

DanC: ADJOURN. Next meeting: March 7, 2007, 3:30pm ET