IRC log of waf on 2008-01-23
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:00:41 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #waf
- 20:00:41 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-waf-irc
- 20:00:43 [trackbot-ng]
- RRSAgent, make logs member
- 20:00:43 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #waf
- 20:00:45 [trackbot-ng]
- Zakim, this will be WAF
- 20:00:45 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot-ng; I see IA_WAF()3:00PM scheduled to start now
- 20:00:46 [trackbot-ng]
- Meeting: Web Application Formats Working Group Teleconference
- 20:00:46 [trackbot-ng]
- Date: 23 January 2008
- 20:01:00 [tlr]
- tlr has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jan/0223.html
- 20:01:02 [tlr]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jan/0223.html
- 20:02:30 [Zakim]
- IA_WAF()3:00PM has now started
- 20:02:37 [Zakim]
- +[Mozilla]
- 20:02:39 [Zakim]
- +Thomas
- 20:02:41 [Zakim]
- +Dave_Orchard
- 20:02:41 [sicking]
- sicking has joined #waf
- 20:03:14 [Zakim]
- + +1.781.993.aaaa
- 20:03:22 [ArtB]
- zakim, aaaa is ArtB
- 20:03:22 [Zakim]
- +ArtB; got it
- 20:03:23 [sicking]
- Zakim, mozilla is me
- 20:03:23 [Zakim]
- +sicking; got it
- 20:03:25 [ArtB]
- Chair: ArtB
- 20:03:32 [ArtB]
- Meeting: WAF WG Voice Conference
- 20:04:17 [Art]
- Art has joined #waf
- 20:06:00 [anne]
- i don't have better equipment than last time so i'll prolly have to be muted all the time...
- 20:06:07 [anne]
- Zakim, passcode?
- 20:06:07 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), anne
- 20:06:57 [Art]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jan/0223.html
- 20:07:04 [Zakim]
- +anne
- 20:07:19 [Art]
- Present: Art, Anne, Dave, Jonas, Thomas
- 20:07:25 [Art]
- Scribe: Art
- 20:07:31 [Art]
- ScribeNick: ArtB
- 20:07:36 [Art]
- Topic: Review Agenda
- 20:07:53 [anne]
- Zakim, mute me
- 20:07:53 [Zakim]
- anne should now be muted
- 20:08:17 [tlr]
- zakim, mute Dave_Orchard
- 20:08:17 [Zakim]
- Dave_Orchard should now be muted
- 20:08:22 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute Dave_Orchard
- 20:08:22 [Zakim]
- Dave_Orchard should no longer be muted
- 20:08:26 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute Mozilla
- 20:08:26 [Zakim]
- sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to Mozilla
- 20:08:30 [Art]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:08:30 [Zakim]
- ArtB should now be muted
- 20:08:31 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute sicking
- 20:08:32 [Zakim]
- sicking was not muted, tlr
- 20:08:34 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:08:34 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 20:08:36 [tlr]
- zakim, mute sicking
- 20:08:36 [Zakim]
- sicking should now be muted
- 20:08:44 [tlr]
- zakim, who is making noise?
- 20:08:57 [Zakim]
- tlr, listening for 11 seconds I could not identify any sounds
- 20:09:06 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute art
- 20:09:06 [Zakim]
- ArtB should no longer be muted
- 20:09:11 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute thomas
- 20:09:11 [Zakim]
- Thomas should no longer be muted
- 20:09:18 [tlr]
- zakim, who is muted?
- 20:09:18 [Zakim]
- I see sicking, anne muted
- 20:09:20 [sicking]
- I am, but muted
- 20:09:24 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute sicking
- 20:09:24 [Zakim]
- sicking should no longer be muted
- 20:09:26 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute anne
- 20:09:26 [Zakim]
- anne should no longer be muted
- 20:09:28 [tlr]
- zakim, mute thomas
- 20:09:28 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 20:09:57 [tlr]
- I'm muted, folks, so can't be me if the noise is still there
- 20:10:02 [Art]
- AB: propose adding the P3P suggestion raised by Mark to the agenda
- 20:10:04 [anne]
- it's no longer here
- 20:10:08 [tlr]
- oh
- 20:10:08 [Art]
- AB: is that OK?
- 20:10:09 [anne]
- because you're muted :)
- 20:10:10 [tlr]
- I hear it quite well
- 20:10:12 [tlr]
- *argh*
- 20:10:26 [Art]
- AB: it would be the last part of the meeting ~10 mins or so
- 20:10:32 [anne]
- (there is some other noise to though)
- 20:10:32 [Art]
- AB: any objections
- 20:10:43 [Art]
- JS: OK with me
- 20:11:04 [Art]
- [Chair notes noise probs has caused most people to mute ...]
- 20:11:35 [Art]
- Topic: Requirements
- 20:12:03 [Art]
- AB: thanks for submitting the input of requirements Jonas
- 20:12:17 [Zakim]
- -Thomas
- 20:12:24 [Art]
- AB: since then we've comments from Art, Jon, Thomas, probably others regarding those reqs
- 20:12:36 [tlr_]
- tlr_ has joined #waf
- 20:13:29 [tlr_]
- zakim, call thomas-skype
- 20:13:29 [Zakim]
- ok, tlr_; the call is being made
- 20:13:31 [tlr_]
- sorry...
- 20:13:31 [Zakim]
- +Thomas
- 20:13:33 [tlr_]
- zakim, call thomas-skype
- 20:13:33 [Zakim]
- ok, tlr_; the call is being made
- 20:13:35 [Zakim]
- +Thomas.a
- 20:13:54 [tlr_]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 20:13:54 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see sicking, Dave_Orchard, ArtB, anne, Thomas, Thomas.a (muted)
- 20:14:01 [tlr_]
- zakim, drop Thomas.a
- 20:14:01 [Zakim]
- Thomas.a is being disconnected
- 20:14:02 [Zakim]
- -Thomas.a
- 20:15:33 [Art]
- AB: open the floor to any major reqs related issues people want to discuss
- 20:15:53 [Art]
- DO: want to raise the server-side versus client-side PEP
- 20:16:22 [Art]
- ... my related e-mail gave my position
- 20:16:29 [Art]
- ... don't think we have consensus on this
- 20:16:34 [Art]
- ... within the WG
- 20:16:50 [Art]
- ... but I haven't seen Thomas' latest e-mail
- 20:17:13 [tlr]
- q+
- 20:17:17 [sicking]
- q+
- 20:17:17 [Art]
- ... there has been lots of discussion
- 20:17:34 [Art]
- ... some people in the WG feel strongly about it
- 20:17:59 [Art]
- ... I don't think we should close this issue
- 20:18:08 [Art]
- ... likely to be a formal objection
- 20:18:20 [Art]
- ... think we need to try to get to consensus
- 20:18:39 [Art]
- ... I've been dismayed by some of the comments
- 20:19:07 [Art]
- ... For example "take it to another WG"
- 20:20:21 [Zakim]
- -anne
- 20:20:27 [Art]
- TR: may make sense to talk about the reqs in the context of the Issues
- 20:20:44 [anne]
- Zakim, passcode?
- 20:20:44 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), anne
- 20:21:02 [Art]
- Topic: ISSUE #20 - location of the PEP
- 20:21:10 [Zakim]
- +anne
- 20:21:59 [tlr]
- q?
- 20:22:00 [Art]
- AvK: what is the counter-proposal?
- 20:22:10 [Art]
- ... how do you not involve the client?
- 20:22:22 [sicking]
- Zakim, who is making noice
- 20:22:22 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is making noice', sicking
- 20:22:27 [sicking]
- Zakim, who is making noise
- 20:22:27 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is making noise', sicking
- 20:22:29 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:22:29 [Zakim]
- sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
- 20:22:34 [Art]
- ... I've raised these questions on the mail list but haven't gotten any response
- 20:22:45 [tlr]
- zakim, I am thomas
- 20:22:45 [Zakim]
- ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
- 20:22:47 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:22:47 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 20:22:47 [Art]
- DO: I defer to Tyler and other security folks
- 20:22:53 [sicking]
- zakim, who is making noise?
- 20:23:03 [Zakim]
- sicking, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sicking (5%), Dave_Orchard (30%), ArtB (4%), anne (29%)
- 20:23:10 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:23:10 [Zakim]
- Thomas should no longer be muted
- 20:23:37 [sicking]
- anne, you are causing echo
- 20:23:41 [tlr]
- q?
- 20:23:46 [anne]
- Zakim, mute me
- 20:23:46 [Zakim]
- anne should now be muted
- 20:23:51 [Art]
- AB: I thought Anne's quest for an alternate proposal was to the whole community not just to Dave
- 20:24:01 [Art]
- AvK: yes, that's correct
- 20:24:19 [Art]
- TR: I think we should first look at the reqs
- 20:25:34 [tlr]
- zakim, call thomas-home
- 20:25:34 [Zakim]
- ok, tlr; the call is being made
- 20:25:36 [Zakim]
- +Thomas
- 20:25:38 [Zakim]
- -Dave_Orchard
- 20:25:57 [Zakim]
- -Thomas
- 20:25:59 [Zakim]
- -anne
- 20:26:00 [anne]
- Zakim, who is making noise?
- 20:26:11 [Zakim]
- anne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ArtB (9%)
- 20:27:08 [tlr]
- dave?
- 20:27:09 [anne]
- whoa
- 20:27:10 [tlr]
- anne?
- 20:27:14 [anne]
- Zakim, passcode?
- 20:27:14 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), anne
- 20:28:30 [Zakim]
- +anne
- 20:28:37 [tlr]
- dave?
- 20:28:43 [tlr]
- want to rejoin?
- 20:29:47 [Art]
- AvK: did anyone make a concrete proposal?
- 20:29:58 [Art]
- TR: Mark and Tyler both made concrete proposals
- 20:30:30 [Art]
- JS: we certainly put more of the enforcement in the client
- 20:32:23 [Art]
- TR: one of Mark's proposals should be workable
- 20:32:58 [tlr]
- http://www.w3.org/mid/B8F607CD-811A-44DF-BE58-314C8BB9CAE3@yahoo-inc.com
- 20:33:13 [Art]
- TR: but it doesn't work with legacy servers
- 20:33:26 [Art]
- JS: I don't see any way of doing this and still meeting req #4
- 20:33:46 [Art]
- TR: good point
- 20:34:43 [Art]
- ... if you wanted to do enforcement on the server side would require a step where client asks the server if it understands the protocol
- 20:34:57 [Art]
- ... if the server does, then the details could be moved to the server
- 20:35:13 [Art]
- ... but have to be careful not to break existing services
- 20:35:25 [Art]
- ... policy lang doesn't have to travel over the wire
- 20:36:02 [Art]
- AvK: that makes GET requests more complicated
- 20:36:12 [Art]
- ... have to know if server is capable of replying
- 20:36:21 [Art]
- ... makes caching on the server harder
- 20:38:34 [Art]
- JS: I think we need a concrete proposal
- 20:38:47 [Art]
- ... including the attacks it addresses
- 20:39:17 [Art]
- AvK: hard to comment on the other proposal when it isn't real concreate
- 20:39:36 [Art]
- TR: given DO dropped off I think we don't have critical mass to continue this discussion
- 20:39:40 [Art]
- JS: I agree
- 20:39:44 [tlr]
- tlr has joined #waf
- 20:40:13 [Art]
- AB: would like to understand the requirements angle
- 20:40:58 [Art]
- TR: would need some type of discovery mechanism
- 20:41:09 [Zakim]
- +Dave_Orchard
- 20:41:35 [Art]
- ... need to understand the complexity of the server versus the client
- 20:42:16 [Art]
- ... i.e. where to put the complexity
- 20:42:53 [Art]
- JS: I don't see it as client side PEP vs. server side PEP because there will need to be policy enforcement on both
- 20:42:58 [Art]
- TR: I agree
- 20:43:12 [Art]
- JS: we need 1) coutner proposal; 2) what are the problems to solve
- 20:43:30 [Art]
- TR: I can create some counter proposals
- 20:43:37 [Art]
- AB: that would be good
- 20:44:10 [Art]
- TR: I can come up with 1 or 2 straw man proposals
- 20:44:39 [Art]
- DO: what about the proposals that Tyler proposed
- 20:45:45 [Art]
- TR: the question isn't where the PEP resides but how to split the complexity betweent the client and server. The client will not be eliminated from the decision, regardless of the architecture.
- 20:46:30 [Art]
- ... The only way to eliminate the client completely is to mint a new HTTP method
- 20:46:51 [Art]
- ... But that would create a huge deployment problem.
- 20:47:05 [Art]
- ... There will always be some policy enforcement on the client.
- 20:48:58 [Art]
- ... Can only entirely move the decision to the server if the client is certain the server can do 100% of the policy decision.
- 20:49:09 [Art]
- [Scribe missed some details ...]
- 20:49:16 [Art]
- JS: please send this to the mail list
- 20:49:54 [Art]
- ACTION: Thomas submit proposal to the mail list regarding the policy decision split and complexity
- 20:49:54 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-154 - Submit proposal to the mail list regarding the policy decision split and complexity [on Thomas Roessler - due 2008-01-30].
- 20:50:31 [Art]
- JS: we must understand the problems that will be solved by the other proposal
- 20:50:34 [Art]
- TR: agree
- 20:50:41 [Art]
- AB: agree
- 20:51:47 [Art]
- ACTION: Jonas send a request for comments regarding the policy decision questions and issues
- 20:51:47 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-155 - Send a request for comments regarding the policy decision questions and issues [on Jonas Sicking - due 2008-01-30].
- 20:53:10 [Art]
- Topic: Requirements
- 20:53:20 [tlr]
- zakim, call thomas-781
- 20:53:20 [Zakim]
- ok, tlr; the call is being made
- 20:53:22 [Zakim]
- +Thomas
- 20:53:35 [Zakim]
- -Thomas
- 20:54:06 [Art]
- AB: what do we want to discuss?
- 20:54:13 [Art]
- AvK: prefer to discuss on the mail list
- 20:54:26 [Art]
- JS: I agree
- 20:55:27 [Art]
- DO: think we need to discuss requirements
- 20:55:42 [Art]
- TR: would prefer requirement discussion on the phone
- 20:55:55 [tlr]
- chair's call, I gues
- 20:57:34 [Art]
- DO: think it's hard to follow some of the detailed discussions related to requirements
- 21:01:52 [Art]
- AB: what is your plan Anne to address the comments on reqs?
- 21:02:01 [Art]
- AvK: I will respond on the mail list
- 21:02:25 [Art]
- AvK: I don't think we should delay the work to get everything documented
- 21:02:35 [Art]
- DO: but we don't have agreement with what is documented
- 21:02:47 [Art]
- AvK: if someone disagrees, they need to submit comments
- 21:02:56 [Art]
- TR: we don't have agreements
- 21:03:25 [Art]
- ... we need to go through the requirements and discuss them
- 21:04:26 [Art]
- Topic: Requirement #1
- 21:05:53 [Art]
- AB: who is going to drive this?
- 21:06:01 [Art]
- JS: I responded to Jon just now
- 21:07:07 [Art]
- TR: I don't have much to add to beyond what I said on the mail list
- 21:08:04 [Art]
- ... may be able to merge 13 with #1.d
- 21:09:06 [Art]
- JS: It would be good if comments included proposed changes
- 21:12:57 [Art]
- AB: any other questions about TR's comments?
- 21:13:02 [Art]
- AvK: I haven't read it yet
- 21:13:06 [Art]
- JS: me neither
- 21:13:38 [Art]
- AvK: could someone give me some ABNF help?
- 21:13:43 [Art]
- DO: I can help.
- 21:13:50 [Art]
- AvK: thanks!
- 21:15:01 [Art]
- AvK: it would be good if there was a proposal for specific reqs before the call.
- 21:15:12 [Art]
- AB: any issues with that?
- 21:15:14 [Art]
- JS: no
- 21:15:23 [Art]
- AB: sounds reasonable to me
- 21:16:13 [Art]
- TR: Art should solicit input on specific reqs and add them to the agenda
- 21:16:21 [Art]
- AB: I'm OK with that
- 21:17:14 [Art]
- DO: one thing we can do is to pick a couple of issues that we want to get closure and give ~ 1 week notice.
- 21:17:20 [Art]
- AB: good idea Dave
- 21:18:31 [tlr_]
- tlr_ has joined #waf
- 21:19:02 [Art]
- Topic: Fixed URI
- 21:19:21 [Art]
- AB: Mark's comments about needing to look at P3P
- 21:19:46 [Art]
- AB: what is the issue?
- 21:20:37 [Art]
- AvK: I think we want per resource
- 21:21:19 [Art]
- JS: not clear if P3P was being suggested as something we should use or something we should look at
- 21:21:39 [Art]
- ... can put the policy file in a header
- 21:22:04 [dorchard]
- dorchard has joined #waf
- 21:23:04 [tlr_]
- P3P use case is slightly different. The policy is retrieved in a special safe zone.
- 21:23:12 [Art]
- JS: I think Mark was talking about a mechanismm to associate a policy and a URI
- 21:23:13 [tlr_]
- (don't remember the spec's precise name for that)
- 21:23:19 [tlr_]
- +1 to JS actually
- 21:23:58 [Art]
- AB: Mark suggested this should be added to the Issue List.
- 21:24:03 [Art]
- ... What do you think?
- 21:24:13 [Art]
- AvK: too vague to know if that is true
- 21:24:26 [Art]
- JS: agree I'm not sure what he's looking for
- 21:24:48 [Art]
- TR: think he is concerened about scalability (e.g. Akami)
- 21:25:05 [Art]
- AvK: we need to ask for clarification
- 21:25:30 [Art]
- ACTION: Anne seek clarification from Mark about the P3P-related issue
- 21:25:30 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-156 - Seek clarification from Mark about the P3P-related issue [on Anne van Kesteren - due 2008-01-30].
- 21:27:43 [Zakim]
- -Dave_Orchard
- 21:28:32 [Art]
- AvK: I think we need a plan on how to move forward
- 21:28:51 [Art]
- ... e.g. new questions all the time
- 21:30:45 [Art]
- AB: I'm open to suggestions on how to move forward
- 21:30:56 [Art]
- AvK: I think the design is good
- 21:31:04 [Art]
- ... but there is a call for more rationale
- 21:31:36 [tlr_]
- q+
- 21:32:02 [Art]
- ... dont' want to keep discussing reqs but prefer to talk about technical issues
- 21:33:28 [tlr_]
- q-
- 21:33:43 [sicking]
- -q
- 21:33:48 [tlr_]
- q- tlr
- 21:35:11 [Art]
- Topic: Schedules
- 21:35:37 [dorchard]
- I remain convinced that the design is reflective of an implied set of requirements, of which there is not consensus.
- 21:35:41 [Art]
- TR: regarding Voice Confs, I have this slot on the 30th
- 21:35:54 [Art]
- ... will need to send regrets on the week of Feb 6
- 21:36:07 [Art]
- ... OK on Feb 13
- 21:36:23 [Art]
- ... but then it gets more difficult
- 21:37:03 [Art]
- JS: I can reiterate we are running out of time
- 21:37:13 [Art]
- ... I am nervous about getting this in FF3
- 21:38:15 [Art]
- AB: I propose we plan to have a call next week
- 21:39:08 [Art]
- TR: are we expecting to stick to this timeslot for the forseeable future?
- 21:39:20 [Art]
- AvK: this time is good
- 21:39:24 [Art]
- JS: me too
- 21:39:27 [Art]
- AB: me too
- 21:40:21 [Art]
- AB: meeting adjourned
- 21:40:22 [Zakim]
- -anne
- 21:40:24 [Zakim]
- -sicking
- 21:40:27 [Zakim]
- -Thomas
- 21:40:29 [Art]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 21:40:35 [Art]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 21:40:35 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-waf-minutes.html Art
- 21:42:08 [Art]
- ScribeNick: Art
- 21:42:14 [Art]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 21:42:14 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-waf-minutes.html Art
- 21:43:03 [Zakim]
- -ArtB
- 21:43:05 [Zakim]
- IA_WAF()3:00PM has ended
- 21:43:06 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Thomas, Dave_Orchard, +1.781.993.aaaa, ArtB, sicking, anne, Thomas.a
- 21:44:35 [shepazu]
- shepazu has joined #waf
- 21:45:30 [tlr_]
- trackbot-ng, close ACTION-156
- 21:45:30 [trackbot-ng]
- ACTION-156 Seek clarification from Mark about the P3P-related issue closed
- 21:45:36 [tlr_]
- if that's what you meant
- 21:48:45 [tlr]
- tlr has joined #waf
- 21:49:21 [anne]
- well, i suppose
- 21:49:31 [anne]
- i meant more that i e-mailed Mark :)
- 21:49:54 [shepazu]
- anne, ping
- 21:50:02 [anne]
- pong
- 21:50:17 [shepazu]
- are you interested in attending the D3E telcons?
- 21:50:24 [tlr]
- trackbpt-ng, reopen ACTION-156
- 21:50:32 [shepazu]
- if so, does Monday or Friday work better for you?
- 21:50:59 [anne]
- monday would work
- 21:51:04 [anne]
- same time
- 21:51:18 [shepazu]
- ok, would you propose that to the WG?
- 21:51:22 [shepazu]
- thanks
- 21:51:51 [shepazu]
- I'm glad you said Monday... Friday would be bad for most people
- 21:52:23 [Art]
- rrsagent, bye
- 21:52:23 [RRSAgent]
- I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-waf-actions.rdf :
- 21:52:23 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Thomas submit proposal to the mail list regarding the policy decision split and complexity [1]
- 21:52:23 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-waf-irc#T20-49-54
- 21:52:23 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Jonas send a request for comments regarding the policy decision questions and issues [2]
- 21:52:23 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-waf-irc#T20-51-47
- 21:52:23 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Anne seek clarification from Mark about the P3P-related issue [3]
- 21:52:23 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-waf-irc#T21-25-30