See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: ArtB
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 10 December 2009
<Marcos> be there in 1 sec
AB: the draft agenda was posted on 9 December ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1202.html ). Any change requests?
DR: would like to add PAG
AB: OK, will add to AOB
... any other change requests?
[ None ]
AB: the only announcement I have
is that there will be no call on Dec 24 or Dec 31, thus the
last call for 2009 will be on December 17 and we will resume on
... any other annoucements?
[ None ]
AB: the comment period for TWI
LC#2 ended December 8. The only comment was from Kai Hendry.
Marcos and Robin responded to Kai's comment and Kai indicated
the group's response was satisfactory.
... does anyone have any concerns about the way the comments were handled ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-apis-20091117/doc/ )?
[ None ]
AB: the TWI spec has 3 normative
references that are work in progress: HTML5, Web IDL and Web
Storage. This means TWI spec cannot be promoted to
Recommendation until these references are "more mature",
apparently Proposed Recommendations.
... there was a related discussion about this (e.g. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1157.html ) and the policy, is defined by the Process Document and the Transition Rules.
... does anyone have any concerns or questions about this?
[ No ]
AB: given we have addressed all of the TWI LC comments, it appears the TWI spec is ready for Candidate. Any comments about that?
<darobin> +1 for CR
AB: proposed Resolution: the TWI spec is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation. Any objections?
[ No ]
RESOLUTION: the TWI spec is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation
<scribe> ACTION: barstow submit a Transition Request to publish a CR of the TWI spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-467 - Submit a Transition Request to publish a CR of the TWI spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-17].
AB: thanks to the Editors of the TWI spec - Marcos, Arve and Robin!
AB: Besides DAP WG, are there any
other WGs or external groups we want to ask for comments re
... Note it is very important we get as much review as possible. Additionally, proof of wide review is a requirement to progressing to Candidate Recommendation.
... is this something BONDI will reviewing?
DR: yes, more than likely BONDI will review it
AB: do you need me or Team to ask them?
<darobin> should we ask the new security list?
DR: no, I will do that
RB: perhaps we should ask the new security IG
AB: that's a good point; I'll send a request
<scribe> ACTION: barstow ask public-web-security to review WARP LC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-468 - Ask public-web-security to review WARP LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-17].
AB: anything eles on WARP spec
... perhaps SteveJ and Marcin can use this time
SJ: I just send an email to the public list
MH: I can provide some info to SJ re discussions related to the "local" WARP requirement
RB: I think Arve has ideas as
... it would be good to get some input from Opera
SJ: any feedback on what Opera has done would be useful
<arve> We'll call in again
... I authored the doc from Opera
... but not sure that feature should be supported
... think defn of local should be up to the local admin
... not clear what should happen with IPv6
SJ: there is an RFC for
... I'll send it to the list
... IPv6 is of course more complicated
Arve: what's the use case for knowing what is local and what is not?
SJ: there are some networks with
no DNS or know IP addresses
... but WARP requires an IP address
<darobin> for the record, I think that SJ's use case is definitely a good one
SJ: therefore as a widget developer cannot address those hosts
Arve: can use "*"
... in this case
Arve: the network becomes complicated i.e. the context of what is local
SJ: yes, could use "*"
... but the UA may not support it
... especially in a mobile net with operator restrictions
... it would also give access to *any* IP address on the Internet
Arve: I think most devs will use no access or "*"
SJ: not sure that's going to be the case
<marcin> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/ says:
SJ: I am mostly interested in the mobile case
<marcin> The use of the character string "local" is intended to efficiently and interoperably specify the hosts belonging to the local network. It is assumed that the lack of such a possibility would result in the extensive usage of the U+002A ASTERISK (*) special value and thus could result in the access request policy model being ineffective.
MH: I just put my comments in
... they cite the draft I created a while ago
... I think SJ's comments are captured in my draft
... Need to limit the network somehow and we need to get agreement on the "how"
... Needs to work with VPN networks too
... need to distinguish Internet and Intranet
Arve: why is
local/private/Intranet so important it needs to be
... local network is configurable on the handset
MH: primary use case here is
widget I want to run at home that only works on devices in my
... e.g. to display images from a UPnP server
... If I use "*", it contradicts the whole use case as it opens to the entire Internet
Arve: I have an argument against that
DR: need to support defensive depth
<steve> is mDNS sufficiently well-standardised? ISTR it's only an informational RFC, but I might be wrong
MH: need to add more semantics to <access> element
Arve: not sure we it makes sense
to separate local and remote on IP addresses
... think it opens too many holes
SJ: I'd like to understand those holes
<darobin> +1 on SJ making a proposal
<arve> +1 on proposal
SJ: I'll follow-up on the mail list
<darobin> I think that mDNS is reasonably well understood, but let me check
AB: good; let's continue this topic on the list
<timeless_mbp> there are certainly 3-4 useful mDNS impls
AB: after I submitted today's agenda, Larry Masinter responded to several of Robin's replies. The comment tracking doc is ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/doc/ ).
<darobin> ah, there appears to be Service Location Protocol (SLP) on standards track
AB: Robin, do we want to discuss any of Larry's emails today?
RB: I haven't looked at LM's
emails in detail enough to discuss today
... hope to respond by tomorrow
<timeless> Zakim: aabb is also me
AB: anything else on LM's comments or the Scheme spec for today?
[ No ]
AB: given LM's new emails, we won't discuss CR for Scheme spec today
AB: next call is December
... David, you wanted an update on the WARP PAG?
<Marcos> +q about publishing updates
DR: activity for a PAG should
happen within 30 days
... would like to know if there is any status to share?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow ask Team to provide WARP PAG status to the WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-469 - Ask Team to provide WARP PAG status to the WG [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-17].
DR: would like that to go out by tomorrow
<marcin> mDNS will require some implementation, "local" does not
DR: if that is possible
<marcin> trying to make it simpler
MC: I didn't see Updates on the agenda
AB: my recollection is you Marcos agreed to have Updates ready for a new WD pub by 17 Dec
MC: OK, I can do that
<steve> apologies - WUA?
AB: I will try to get the CR for
the TWI spec published this year, but timing wise, that may not
... are there any other docs we will try to publish by Dec 18?
MC: only the Updates spec and TWI CR
RB: perhaps URI spec but not clear we can do that
AB: anything else on publications?
[ No ]
AB: any other AOB topics?
[ No ]
AB: Meeting Adjourned
<darobin> ooh, I forgot to ask!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: ArtB Inferring ScribeNick: ArtB Found ScribeNick: ArtB Present: Art Marcin SteveJ Arve David Marcos Robin Regrets: Suresh Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/1202.html Found Date: 10 Dec 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html People with action items: ask barstow public-web-security team[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]