IRC log of waf on 2008-05-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:01:07 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #waf

11:01:07 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-waf-irc

11:02:04 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

11:02:30 [marcos]

zakim, IPcaller is me

11:02:30 [Zakim]

+marcos; got it

11:03:26 [ArtB]

Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference

11:03:39 [ArtB]

Date: 29 May 2008

11:03:42 [ArtB]

Chair: Art

11:03:45 [ArtB]

Scribe: Art

11:03:50 [ArtB]

ScribeNick: ArtB

11:04:00 [ArtB]

Present: Art, Claudio, Marcos

11:04:07 [ArtB]

Regrests: Ben, Benoit

11:04:26 [ArtB]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008May/0011.html

11:05:41 [Zakim]

+ +47.23.69.aabb

11:05:52 [ArtB]

zakim, aabb is Arve

11:05:52 [Zakim]

+Arve; got it

11:06:05 [ArtB]

Present+ Arve

11:07:03 [ArtB]

Regrets: Ben, Benoit

11:07:11 [ArtB]

Topic: Review Agenda

11:07:21 [ArtB]

AB: any change requested?

11:07:30 [ArtB]

[None]

11:07:38 [ArtB]

Topic: Announcements

11:08:02 [ArtB]

AB: next week's meeting June 5 - start time will be ONE HOUR EARLIER!

11:08:34 [ArtB]

Topic: Auto-updates

11:08:48 [ArtB]

AB: proposal from Marcos http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008May/0124.html

11:09:19 [ArtB]

AB: is this your proposal or did you work with Arve?

11:09:44 [ArtB]

MC: this started as my input but reflects comments from Arve, Mark Baker and JonF

11:10:10 [ArtB]

... this proposal includes several mechanisms

11:10:35 [ArtB]

AB: orthoganal or complementary mechanisms?

11:10:46 [ArtB]

MC: some are complementary and some are orthoganal

11:11:35 [ArtB]

... there are four mechanism described in varying levels of detail

11:12:20 [ArtB]

CV: agree some mechanisms are complementary but they seem to address different use cases

11:13:07 [ArtB]

... e.g. the 2nd mechanism gives some additional flexibility

11:13:19 [ArtB]

... it could be viewed as an extension to the 1st proposal

11:14:12 [ArtB]

ABe: the 2nd mechanism (XML file) can be done via a push to the UA

11:14:52 [ArtB]

MC: using the hash is kinda' of a cheap dig sig scheme thus another good thing about the XML format

11:15:23 [ArtB]

AB: of these mechanisms, which is most commonly implemented today?

11:15:44 [ArtB]

MC: #3 (local storage) is the most common i.e. just download a new widget

11:16:16 [ArtB]

... pretty much just leaves the details to the UA

11:16:37 [ArtB]

... and hence doesn't require much standardization

11:17:12 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, code?

11:17:12 [Zakim]

the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MikeSmith

11:17:31 [ArtB]

ABe: these proposals are still a bit short on details

11:17:33 [Zakim]

+??P0

11:17:39 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, ??P0 is me

11:17:39 [Zakim]

+MikeSmith; got it

11:17:45 [ArtB]

... think we need to explore the alternatives some more

11:17:55 [ArtB]

MC: agree; I've started to expand the examples

11:18:27 [ArtB]

... I will also include the various usage scenarios

11:19:06 [ArtB]

AB: that would be excellent; we can then analyze the various strengths and weakness of the different models

11:19:51 [ArtB]

Topic: Widget Resource on the Web

11:20:07 [marcos]

<update url="http:/a.com/myWidget.wgt" etag="36f4d2e876c5c51:b74"/>

11:20:12 [ArtB]

MC: this model requires author to include an update element with a URI attribute

11:20:22 [ArtB]

... the etag attr would be optional

11:20:50 [ArtB]

... if etag is present can compare it with what is installed; if different, assume a new widget exists

11:21:02 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, mute me

11:21:02 [Zakim]

MikeSmith should now be muted

11:21:10 [ArtB]

AB: we discussed that mechanism last year, right?

11:21:33 [ArtB]

MC: yes, Mark Baker suggested the etag

11:22:13 [ArtB]

MC: if etag is missing, the UA asks the user if they want to update the widget

11:23:28 [ArtB]

... this model uses HTTP caching mechanism

11:25:16 [ArtB]

ABe: not sure what happens if the widget was obtained via some non-http protocol e.g. Bluetooth

11:25:50 [ArtB]

... think there is a trust issue with this model e.g. where did the widget really come from

11:26:17 [ArtB]

MC: right, a Widget could be copied from one site and installed somewhere else

11:26:33 [ArtB]

ABe: I'm concerned about tampering of un-signed widgets

11:26:49 [ArtB]

... the update URI could have been altered by some means

11:27:11 [ArtB]

... or the etag could be tampered

11:27:49 [ArtB]

MC: yes, but I don't think we want to prescribe encryption

11:28:09 [ArtB]

ABe: but the update document could be signed

11:28:24 [ArtB]

MC: can also require httpS

11:29:36 [ArtB]

MC: in the web today we see this issue being addressed by asking the user if they really want to install something (e.g. FF installed from a non-Mozilla site)

11:30:08 [ArtB]

ABe: the main thing we must do is to clearly identify the security considerations

11:30:23 [ArtB]

Topic: XML File

11:30:42 [ArtB]

ABe: an advantage of this model is the update format can be signed

11:31:06 [ArtB]

ABe: I think we need to flesh-out both of these models

11:31:18 [ArtB]

MC: I think we should document both models

11:32:00 [ArtB]

AB: would the server need to do anything special in this model?

11:32:08 [ArtB]

MC: no it would not

11:32:22 [ArtB]

... the update format could be done by hand given it is quite simple

11:33:00 [ArtB]

AB: is this model being used today?

11:33:20 [ArtB]

MC: yes it is being used by numerous systems (iTunes, Debian, ...)

11:33:51 [ArtB]

... this is certainly more common than model #1

11:34:46 [ArtB]

AB: what is the user interaction model for the XML format?

11:35:03 [ArtB]

MC: one mechanism is the UA just tells the user a new version is available

11:35:29 [ArtB]

... another interaction model is a user explicitly checks a "check for updates" sheet

11:36:19 [ArtB]

ABe: I don't think we want to normatively specify the user interaction model

11:36:44 [ArtB]

... especially since the update could be done auto-magically [withouth any user interaction at all]

11:36:59 [ArtB]

MC: agree

11:37:15 [ArtB]

AB: agree too

11:38:41 [ArtB]

CV: the spec should enable different user interaction models

11:39:51 [ArtB]

... want to leave both user interaction models open

11:40:10 [ArtB]

MC: we will not recommend any user interaction model

11:41:23 [ArtB]

CV: data exchange from device to server is important for operators

11:42:19 [ArtB]

... the update process could be used to do advertising

11:42:37 [ArtB]

MC: yes but such a widget would become un-popular

11:43:47 [ArtB]

Topic: Local Storage model (sub-proposal #3)

11:44:32 [ArtB]

MC: the UA compares the current widget id with the new widget

11:46:22 [ArtB]

AB: will you Marcos submit details for this model too?

11:46:34 [ArtB]

MC: yes there are some additional details to flesh out

11:47:09 [ArtB]

Topic: API Call model (sub-proposal #4)

11:47:26 [ArtB]

MC: author provides an update element in the config doc

11:47:41 [ArtB]

... at runtime the script in the engine calls the update() method

11:47:52 [ArtB]

... this causes the UA to ask the server for a new Widget

11:48:07 [ArtB]

... basically, this would trigger model #1 or model #2

11:48:42 [ArtB]

AB: will this one also be further explored?

11:48:59 [ArtB]

MC: yes; in particular will need to add it to the API spec

11:49:13 [ArtB]

ABe: yes, this will need to be detailed in the API spec

11:51:05 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, unmute me

11:51:05 [Zakim]

MikeSmith should no longer be muted

11:51:41 [ArtB]

Topic: WebApps WG Charter Update

11:51:49 [ArtB]

Present+ Mike

11:52:04 [ArtB]

MS: the comment period has ended

11:52:13 [ArtB]

... Doug has responded to all comments

11:52:26 [ArtB]

... He has updated the charter to reflect the comments

11:52:34 [ArtB]

... The deliverables list has been updated

11:53:06 [ArtB]

... Most of the AC commentors are OK with the Team's responses

11:53:41 [ArtB]

MC: we expected comments about too many deliverables but we didn't get such feedback

11:53:58 [ArtB]

... the only exception is Geo-location

11:54:34 [ArtB]

... we expect to do the Geo-location API in a separate WG but that's not yet a done deal because we first have to get AC review

11:55:13 [ArtB]

s/MC: we expected/MS: we expected/

11:55:36 [ArtB]

MS: Access Control will remain in the WebApps WG

11:56:07 [ArtB]

AB: thanks Mike

11:56:13 [ArtB]

... our Charter ends May 31

11:56:22 [ArtB]

MS: yes, we will need another short extension

11:57:39 [ArtB]

AB: thanks to Mike and Doug for all of the time and effort they've put into getting this done!

11:57:56 [ArtB]

Topic: Next F2F Meeting

11:58:26 [MikeSmith]

for the record, Doug did almost all of the work on the charter and disposition comments (not me)

11:58:32 [ArtB]

AB: the majority of preferences expressed in Dublin were to have the next f2f in early September

11:58:54 [ArtB]

AB: I'm happy to say Claudio can accomdate that

11:59:10 [ArtB]

AB: next f2f meeting will be Sept 9-11 in Turin Italy

12:02:25 [ArtB]

ACTION: barstow announce Sept 9-11 to the WG

12:02:25 [trackbot-ng]

Created ACTION-179 - Announce Sept 9-11 to the WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-06-05].

12:03:07 [ArtB]

ACTION: barstow review TPAC meeting schedule and forward to the WG

12:03:07 [trackbot-ng]

Created ACTION-180 - Review TPAC meeting schedule and forward to the WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-06-05].

12:03:25 [ArtB]

AB: Meeting Adjourned

12:03:46 [Zakim]

-marcos

12:03:47 [Zakim]

-MikeSmith

12:03:48 [Zakim]

- +39.011.228.aaaa

12:03:50 [Zakim]

-Arve

12:03:52 [ArtB]

rrsagent, make logs public

12:03:58 [ArtB]

rrsagent, make minutes

12:03:58 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-waf-minutes.html ArtB

12:04:02 [Zakim]

-Art_Barstow

12:04:03 [Zakim]

IA_WAF(widgets)7:00AM has ended

12:04:08 [Zakim]

Attendees were +39.011.228.aaaa, Art_Barstow, marcos, +47.23.69.aabb, Arve, MikeSmith

12:06:07 [ArtB]

zakim, bye

12:06:07 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #waf

12:06:20 [ArtB]

rrsagent, bye

12:06:20 [RRSAgent]

I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-waf-actions.rdf :

12:06:20 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: barstow announce Sept 9-11 to the WG [1]

12:06:20 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-waf-irc#T12-02-25

12:06:20 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: barstow review TPAC meeting schedule and forward to the WG [2]

12:06:20 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-waf-irc#T12-03-07