See also: IRC log
RRSAgenet, make log member
<Benoit> morning
Date: 28 August 2008
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
RRSAgent make minutes
AB: agenda is: http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/TurinF2F
... we continue discussions on the P&C spec in particular
open Issues for that spec
... we can then continue any security or sig related
discussions we want to have
... Nick has agreed to make a presentation about OMTP's
relevant security work
... Lastly, we will talk about schedule and plans between now
and Mandelieu
AB: the issue is: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/18
MC: I submitted a proposal to
address this issue
... we discussed it yesterday
... I propose to close this issue since it is captured in the
latest ED for the API and Events spec
AB: any objections to close this?
MP: VF is ok with the proposal we
discussed yesterday
... We do need to feed in a new use case or two
BS: I'm OK with the proposal we discussed yesterday
<MikeSmith> to ArtB: a request: If you could get the phone bridge on for Nick's presentation at least, and get a mic close to him while he's speaking, that would be great
RESOLUTION: we will close Issue #18 and related discussions about the model will continue on the public mail list
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow close Issue #18 with the resolution and rationale in the 28 Aug 2008 minutes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Close Issue #18 with the resolution and rationale in the 28 Aug 2008 minutes [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
<Benoit> big table and a router's fan near the phone area... sorry
<scribe> ACTION: David work with OMTP members to provide input on the enabling access to proprietary APIs model [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - David
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. dorchard, drogers)
<scribe> ACTION: Rogers work with OMTP members to provide input on the enabling access to proprietary APIs model [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-235 - Work with OMTP members to provide input on the enabling access to proprietary APIs model [on David Rogers - due 2008-09-04].
AB: the issue is: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/35
MC: if a SVG image can take live
events, how do we deal with it?
... Do we want to deal with it at all?
... What is the current state of support in the mobile
world?
BS: what is the status of SVG impl in the mobile space?
Dino: there are some impls of
SVG1.2 Tiny
... At least two of the impls are in mobiles
... The SVG spec includes the micro-DOM support and an event
model
... I understand the issue but it could be a lot of work for a
mobile impl
... There could be some room to create a profile.
MC: my gut feel is not to create
a profile
... May need to say something like "if you want to use an SVG
icon, use SVG 1.2 Tiny"
Dino: but may want to include some restrictions
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos add SVG 1.2 Tiny as an icon format (to the P&C) spec and then ask the SVG WG for comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-236 - Add SVG 1.2 Tiny as an icon format (to the P&C) spec and then ask the SVG WG for comments [on Marcos Caceres - due 2008-09-04].
AB: do we close this issue then?
MC: yes
AB: any objections to closing this issue?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: Issue #35 is closed; SVG1.2 Tiny will be added to list of supported formats in the P&C spec
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow close Issue #35 with the rationale above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Close Issue #35 with the rationale above [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
AB: issue #36 is: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/36
<MikeSmith> ArtB: conference Team_(MikeSmith)08:53Z scheduled with code 26633 (CONF3) for 60 minutes until 0953Z
MC: Opera proposed a new file
access API for Widgets last Spring
... Arve doesn't think it should be part of the "core" Widget
API
... does OMTP have a need for this?
NA: yes, something like that is in scope for us
<claudio> TI's SVG guy is Diego not Dino
NA: If it isn't part of the Core, where would it be defined?
<MikeSmith> ArtB: OK, you can dial into Zakim at any time
MC: it would be a separate spec created by WebApps WG
<MikeSmith> tlr: I think David Rogers will be doing a presentation about OMTP security shortly
AB: I prefer a smallish core and then some extensions
NA: is the extensibility mechanism explicit?
MC: yes, the extensibility model
will be part of the core
... Timing wise, the core and other APIs can proceed separately
but they could also be synch'ed up provided an appropriate
level of staffing
... we need an Editor for the File API
<tlr> mike, thanks for the ping; on a call now
NA: I can't make any commitments but I can look into it
MC: we need competent Editors
that understand the relative urgency to complete our
specs
... what is the process for WebApps starting new APIs?
AB: the Charter addresses this
issue
... In general, if there is a new API, we need to get AC
approval before we start
... so where are we on this issue?
MC: I don't think File should be a core API
AB: propose that File API not be
considered part of the Widgets API Core
... any objections?
BS: does this mean a new doc will be created?
MC: yes that is the expectation
AB: we need someone to take ownership
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow work with Nick and Charles to find an Editor for the File API spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Work with Nick and Charles to find an Editor for the File API spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
[ No objections to the proposal above re #36 ]
RESOLUTION: Issue #36 is Closed via the rationale above
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow close Issue #36 with the rational above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - Close Issue #36 with the rational above [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
AB: the issue is: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/45
... what does this "metadata extension" mechanism really
mean?
MC: he basically wants an RDF model
BS: or is he saying the packaging format should not break if it contains unknown elements
MC: I think we need to wait for the market to demand the need for additional metadata
CV: could look at semantic annotation for XML Schema
MC: I don't want to add such a
dependency
... we already have an extension mechanism -> XML
Namespaces
... and then the Author can add anything they want
... Our processing model explicitly says to ignore unknown
elements and attributes
CV: what about use cases for
discovery?
... adding some additional semantics would be good
AB: I agree adding more semantics would be good but I think our current model supports that
BS: so we can close this issue right?
MC: yes.
... Propose to close #45 because we already provide an
extension mechanism to add additional metadata to a
manifest.
AB: any objections to that proposal?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: Issue #45 will be closed - we already provide an extension mechanism to add additional metadata to a manifest
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow close Issue #45 with the rationale above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-240 - Close Issue #45 with the rationale above [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
<scribe> ACTION: Claudio add extensible metadata model for the manifest to the v2 feature list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-241 - Add extensible metadata model for the manifest to the v2 feature list [on Claudio Venezia - due 2008-09-04].
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow send an e-mail to public-appformats that enumerates the Issues we closed this week and includes the rationale [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-242 - Send an e-mail to public-appformats that enumerates the Issues we closed this week and includes the rationale [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
AB: we discussed this on Aug 26 but we didn't assign any actions
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos ask I18N WG if Unicode RTL is sufficiently supported in UAs; if not we will include the <span> element in the Widgets spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-243 - Ask I18N WG if Unicode RTL is sufficiently supported in UAs; if not we will include the <span> element in the Widgets spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2008-09-04].
<MikeSmith> tlr: Nick getting started now
NA: after I cleanup the slide I
am presenting, I will send a copy to public-webapps
... OMTP is mainly a requirement group
... We have done a lot of reqs related to security fwks
... Some of our work is relevant to Widget UAs
... A lot of work is on the security policy framework
... BONDI is a "different" project for OMTP because
... instead of just reqs, we expect to create a Reference
Implementation (RI)
... The area of "enhanced web runtimes" is of wide interest in
the industry
... We see concerns about fragmentation in this space,
especially regarding API fragmenation
[ Nick show block diagram of the Architecture ]
NA: a key part of the sec fwk is
identity and we have some different models re identify e.g.
certs
... all of these identity models are in scope
... we expect the policy fwk to cover these various
models
... regarding our APIs of interest, we have to deal with a)
Generic Event Mechanism
... b) JavaScript Errors
MC: are the Web Package and Widget Package blocks different?
NA: yes, they could be e.g. they
could have different identity associated with them
... Some could have signatures; some not ...
... Want a clear seperation of the application identity and
application authorization
... This model will be declarative in a policy file
... We think our model will be much more flexible
... One underlying assumption is to minimize user interaction
re security considerations, policies, etc.
... Our fwk is agnostic as to business models
... There can be a policy that separates Widgets into two
groups: ones that have no privs; ones that have lots of
privs
CV: is this similar to a black/white list model, Marcos?
MC: it's similar but more complicated
MP: there can be diffs between policies and white/black lists
CV: what will the policy language include?
NA: we want a language that will support a wide range of policies
AB: will you create your own policy language?
NA: we will use OASIS'
XACML
... Fabio is defining a dictionary mapping for us
... It could be XACML is too heavy-weight for some devices in
scope for us
AB: has OASIS done some profileing of XACML?
Fabio: we need to identify a
subset; we are discussing a general fwk
... we may identify some profiles
... we are still working through some scenarios
NA: security policies can be very
complicated
... and they can affect the user experience
... must also reflect user's specific preferences
... must also respect user's privacy requirements and some
jurisdictions have legal frameworks that must be adhered
to
... As to the APIs, we have about 10 that are of interest to
us
... Like WebApps' Widgets work, we recognize a need for an
extensible API model
... But this model must not break the security model
... The APIs are:
... Application Settings - can be app-specific or shared
settings
... User Interaction, Location, PIM, Phone Status, Persistence,
Gallery, Messaging, Application Invoke, Telephony, Camera
s/Applicatin, Invoke,/Application Invoke,/
NA: Gallery API is for an app to
access all multi-media on a device
... re Persistence, we could just re-use the Opera
proposal
... re Location API, we'll probably use or re-use the GeoLoca
work being done at the W3C
MC: are you talking to the GeoLoc WG?
AB: I don't think that WG has been Chartered yet
MS: I expect an annoucement
soon-ish re the GeoLoc WG
... Matt will be the Team Contact
NA: we may be able to use the
DCCI fwk
... but no hard decision has been made yet regarding DCCI
AB: it is my understanding the OpenAjax Alliance has these APIs in scope too
NA: conceptually, these APIs are in scope for them but I don't think they've done much
MP: OAA has a security group and
they passed that work to OMTP
... Regarding APIs, OAA is interested in just a shim layer on
top of "real" APIs
NA: we have a comm channel with OAA and will keep it going
AB: I would to understand more about the expectations for the RIs
NA: we expect contributions from
OMTP members
... the RIs may not result in re-usable code
... We are keeping the licensing terms as flexible as
possible
... Expect some to be GPL or GPL-like; we also expect some
binary components
AB: are you working at all with the UWA WG?
NA: I've talked with the Chair
and Team Contacts
... No formal agreements as of now regarding how to
cooperate
... of the ten APIs we've identified, what are the mappings to
W3C and other Standard Orgs
CV: does OMTP have a relationship with the MWI?
DR: we are investigating it; no
firm decisions yet
... we (OMTP) are resource-constrained
MP: what is the issue here?
AB: I'm not exactly sure
... I'll need to talk to Thomas
MP: my question is: is the desire to use TLS certs to sign a Widget package?
<mpriestl> Concern is that TLS certs are not used to sign widget packages. Certificates are issued based on the presumption that they will be used for a specific purpose. We would object to bending these rules for widgets. If the desire is to use TLS certs for TLS then this would obviously be fine! Request that reason for question is clarified.
AB: OK then, I propose we close this Action
MC: I agree
AB: any objections to closing Action 182?
[ None ]
AB: Note WAF Action #182 is the same as WebApps Action #206 (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/206)
AB: what's the plan, Marcos?
MC: I only plan to make minor edits
AB: any issues or concerns?
BS: is Webwag a candidate?
MC: it's a closed system
AB: without any commitments for contribution, I would not worry about
MC: I will complete it some day
because it is part of my PhD and that means I will be done by
the end of December.
... I want to finish it as a WG Note
AB: excellent; it's been a very valuable resource!
MC: I would also like to be official "Author" of that doc
AB: I support that
BS: me too
MC: next is to process the OMTP
input
... I think we will need to go back to Working Draft
... And then do a minimal-length LC
... I want that comment period to end before October 20
AB: do we need to publish a new
WD before we publish a new LC WD
... can our next pub be another LC?
MS: yes, we can do that
... any number of LCs is possible and any number in a row is
possible, I think
AB: so the plan is to complete the OMTP review within the next 2-3 weeks and to be ready to submit for publication by roughly Sept 20
BS: but we want the comment period to end one week before we meet in Mandelieu
MC: I will try to have it ready to publish by Sep 12th
AB: excellent, Marcos!
MC: I want a FPWD on September 19
DR: we have a problem with the Reqs proposal
MC: I will publish the Reqs doc
on September 19 and we will ask for a 3-week review
period
... that will give us one week to review the comments before
our Mandelieu meeting
AB: is that OK with you David?
DR: yes
NA: yes
AB: back to Auto Updates ...
MC: I will shoot for a September
12 FPWD
... can OMTP guys live with that date
AB: this would mean that during our Sep 11 Voice Conf we should record a "consensus" decision to publish this FPWD
MC: people can start looking at the latest ED now; I don't expect a lot of changes
MC: I propose the next pub on
October 3
... it will be another WD
... Wait, Wait, it will be ready for member review on Oct
3
... My expectation for Mandelieu is: after a short (1-2 weeks)
period after the meeting, we should be ready to publish a LC
WD
AB: sounds like a good plan
MC: On October 31, I plan to submit it the webreq team for publication as a LC WD.
<scribe> ACTION: try to schedule some f2f time with the TAG during Mandelieu re the widget: scheme issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action12]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - try
<MikeSmith> trackbot, status
<trackbot> This channel is not configured
<MikeSmith> trackbot, status?
<trackbot> This channel is not configured
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow try to schedule some f2f time with the TAG during Mandelieu re the widget: scheme issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html#action13]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-244 - try to schedule some f2f time with the TAG during Mandelieu re the widget: scheme issue [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-09-04].
BS: because of the TP blackout,
may not be able to publish on Oct 31 but a week later at
least
... this would mean the earliest we would exit LC is approx
December 1
<MikeSmith> [[
<MikeSmith> 13 October, 12pm ET: Deadline for publication requests
<MikeSmith> before moratorium
<MikeSmith> 16 October: Last publications before moratorium
<MikeSmith> 17 - 26 October: No publications
<MikeSmith> 27 October: Publications resume
<MikeSmith> ]]
MC: Arve said his target for FPWD is mid-September
AB: do you have any concerns about that Marcos?
MC: no
AB: so tentatively, we would be ready to make a formal decision re the FPWD during our September 18 Voice Conf
CV: did we get consensus on the title of the spec
MC: I want to talk to Arve about that
AB: what are our plans for the DigSig spec?
MC: hope to have something ready
for the TP
... Plan a new ED to discuss by October 17
... I'll try earlier but I can't guarantee anything
AB: can Marcos get some help on that spec?
MC: I'm planning to work with
Mark and David
... From October 6-15 I will focus on that spec
AB: I will start dialog with XML Sec WG to see if they can provide some input (and not just review)
CV: are the dates confirmed?
AB: yes, Oct 20 and 21
... I will submit a detailed agenda at least two weeks before
the meeting
CV: does anyone have any plans they can disclose?
MC: I started a RI but I had to stop it because of all of the editing work I'm doing
Fabio: what is you RI?
MC: it's a JS impl that codifies every assertion in the spec
Fabio: perhaps there could be some cooperation with OMTP on the RI
MC: David, when is OMTP going to bring over the API specs?
NA: regarding reqs, that stuff is
available now on our Web site
... We cannot submit it to the W3C until the IPR issues are
resolved
... The details of our specs are tied to our RIs
<drogersuk> We will discuss further in Austin
AB: thanks very much for hosting
us Claudio!
... The food, drink and everything!
... Meeting Adjourned
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/metatda extension/metadata extension/ FAILED: s/Applicatin, Invoke,/Application Invoke,/ Succeeded: s/Application, Invoke,/Application Invoke,/ Succeeded: s/if WebWag/is Webwag/ Found Scribe: Art Found ScribeNick: ArtB Present: Art_Barstow Marcos_Caceres Nick_Allot David_Rogers Mark_Priestly Benoit_Suzzane Claudio_Venezia Dino_Gallo Diego_Gibellino Luca_Bruera Maruo_Sacco Mike_Smith Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/TurinF2F Found Date: 28 Aug 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-wam-minutes.html People with action items: an barstow charles claudio david e-mail marcos members nick omtp rogers send try with work[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]