16:33:26 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 16:33:26 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-tagmem-irc 16:33:39 trackbot, start telcon 16:33:41 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:33:43 Zakim, this will be TAG 16:33:43 ok, trackbot; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 27 minutes 16:33:44 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 16:33:44 Date: 23 September 2010 16:33:59 ScribeNick: ht 16:34:07 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 16:34:17 Chair: Noah Mendelsohn 16:34:45 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/09/23-agenda 16:34:45 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/09/23-agenda 16:59:28 noah has joined #tagmem 16:59:33 masinter has joined #tagmem 17:00:30 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 17:00:31 +Yves 17:00:37 +noah 17:01:16 +Masinter 17:01:36 +Jonathan_Rees 17:01:49 zakim, code? 17:01:49 the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), ht 17:02:00 +??P5 17:02:03 zakim, ? is me 17:02:03 +ht; got it 17:02:05 zakim, who is here? 17:02:05 On the phone I see Yves, noah, Masinter, Jonathan_Rees, ht 17:02:07 On IRC I see masinter, noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, jar, Yves, trackbot 17:02:43 johnk has joined #tagmem 17:04:04 zakim, who is here? 17:04:05 On the phone I see Yves, noah, Masinter, Jonathan_Rees, ht 17:04:07 On IRC I see johnk, masinter, noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, jar, Yves, trackbot 17:04:44 Topic: Admin 17:04:54 JohnK, can you scribe next week please? 17:05:02 NM: Call next week -- AM is up to scribe, but not here. . . 17:05:15 NM: Regrets from AM 17:05:21 JR: Probably not here 17:05:37 it will be difficult for me to scribe or attend next week (I'll be at risk it seems) 17:05:38 NM: Working to get TBL's dates. . . 17:05:44 but I will check 17:06:34 NM: YL is next 17:06:41 YL: I could if necessary 17:07:01 Minutes of the 16th: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/09/16-minutes 17:07:07 +John_Kemp 17:07:12 NM: Minutes of the 16th: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/09/16-minutes 17:07:19 NM: Approved 17:07:19 +1 minutes are ok 17:07:36 JR: I read them, they're good 17:08:12 NM: F2F arrangements as in the past, no local arrangements page yet 17:08:35 NM: TVR has a hard stop at 1700 each day, at which point we will have to leave. . . 17:08:36 q+ 17:08:40 q+ 17:09:14 q? 17:09:14 ack next 17:09:47 q+ IRI, like idea of meeting with others mentioned 17:09:48 HT: I have to leave after lunch on Thursday. 17:10:19 HT: If we could interest others from Google to be interested in meeting, perhaps we have a hard stop? 17:10:31 NM: Outside visitor session? 17:10:32 HT: Yes. 17:10:59 s/we have/we do not have/ 17:11:08 ack next 17:11:16 ScribeNick: ht 17:11:37 JR: You do not have to agree to the NDA in order to enter the building 17:11:45 q+ IRI 17:11:45 ... you just get a black spot 17:11:53 ack next 17:11:54 ack next 17:12:21 LM: I have an IRI editors' call at 1700 on Tuesday 17:12:41 ... other TAG members would be welcome on the call 17:12:59 ... but that would require a space at Google. . . 17:13:08 NM: Official action? 17:13:16 LM: Perhaps not. . . 17:14:40 NM: How best to make use of their presence? 17:15:00 NM: Silence gives consent to my proceeding with this 17:15:01 -Yves 17:15:07 +Yves 17:15:29 of the people you mentioned, the relationship of web to ECMAscript 17:15:59 NM: Still would like to hear from anyone who has writing in progress, or could have, wrt WebApps 17:16:10 seems to be a common topic... Javascript being an important component of WebApps 17:16:26 ACTION-463? 17:16:26 ACTION-463 -- Noah Mendelsohn to respond positively to Mark Nottingham regarding meeting with Alexey at TPAC -- due 2010-09-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:16:26 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/463 17:16:32 Topic: ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66-27): TPAC meeting with IETF 17:16:38 ACTION-464? 17:16:38 ACTION-464 -- Yves Lafon to coordinate agenda for TAG/IETF meeting at TPAC -- due 2010-10-23 -- OPEN 17:16:38 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/464 17:17:05 YL: I spoke with Alexey, but he is headed out on vacation 17:17:36 NM: Mark Nottingham said Alexey was pbly more flexible than the TAG would be 17:17:55 NM: How about Thursday p.m.? 17:18:18 YL: As long as we avoid the AC 17:18:44 NM: So it's TBL, YL, NM and LM -- YL, liaise with Amy to find a time which works for TBL? 17:18:47 YL: Will do 17:18:54 is there a TAG report or section at TPAC/AC meeting? 17:18:55 ACTION-463? 17:18:55 ACTION-463 -- Noah Mendelsohn to respond positively to Mark Nottingham regarding meeting with Alexey at TPAC -- due 2010-09-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:18:55 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/463 17:19:05 close ACTION-463 17:19:05 ACTION-463 Respond positively to Mark Nottingham regarding meeting with Alexey at TPAC closed 17:19:08 ACTION-464? 17:19:08 ACTION-464 -- Yves Lafon to coordinate agenda for TAG/IETF meeting at TPAC -- due 2010-10-23 -- OPEN 17:19:08 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/464 17:19:38 Until we have something scheduled, should this action be closed? 17:19:50 YL: I'm looking at other possible IETF participants 17:20:36 NM: Be clear that only a small part of the TAG will be there 17:21:36 Topic: TP/AC as such 17:22:03 NM: There is currently no slot in either agenda as far as I know 17:22:26 LM: I am uncomfortable that the TAG never reports f2f to the AC 17:22:33 ... not every time, but not never 17:22:54 NM: We got dropped around the time a lot of pruning was done to reporting sessions 17:23:02 ... in favour of topical sessions 17:23:34 s/am uncomfortable that/would be uncomfortable if/ 17:23:42 LM: Repeating a written report is not necessary, but having e.g. a 15-minute Q&A session might be a good thing. . . 17:24:08 NM: Should I reach out to the AC agenda person(s)? 17:24:21 LM: We should offer to be held accountable 17:24:24 HST: +1 17:24:58 NM: Will do 17:25:14 e.g., offer a 15-minute Q&A session, ask members to read TAG status and answer any questions they have about what the TAG is doing 17:25:23 ACTION: Noah to offer to organizers of AC to do short session answering questions and/or giving TAG status report 17:25:23 Created ACTION-469 - Offer to organizers of AC to do short session answering questions and/or giving TAG status report [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-09-30]. 17:25:55 Topic: IS 17:26:13 Topic: ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66-27): IETF Draft on MIME 17:26:51 LM: We've talked about the mismatch/shortfall in the coverage of the whole MIME/Web space between W3C and IETF 17:27:16 ... And so I wrote a 'personal submission' to the IETF to get something started which both groups could endorse 17:27:24 LM: Three questions: 17:27:35 1) Does this proposition make sense? 17:27:43 2) Is it missing anything? 17:27:51 3) Do you understand its recommendations? 17:27:56 4) Do you agree with them? 17:27:57 s/proposition/document/ 17:28:17 1) does the document make sense 17:28:21 2) is it missing anything? 17:28:27 3) do you agree with the analysis of current sate 17:28:35 4) do you agree with recommendations for future action 17:28:39 s/sate/state 17:29:00 NM:: 5) Will the TAG stand up and back this? 17:29:05 right 17:29:22 LM: And maybe will the TAG publish this as its own? 17:29:54 zakim, who is here? 17:29:54 On the phone I see Yves, noah, Masinter, Jonathan_Rees, ht, John_Kemp 17:29:54 [Not all TAG members on the call have read it] 17:29:55 On IRC I see johnk, masinter, noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, jar, Yves, trackbot 17:30:07 s/it/the document/ 17:30:30 NM: Q1: Does the document make sense? 17:30:37 LM: Or, what parts don't? 17:32:05 JK: I only knew what has happened, as it were, since the transfer to the Web of the mime system. So I found the background helpful 17:32:13 ... but still not sure where we go from here. . . 17:32:44 JK: Is your goal to address the problems which arose as a result of the move? 17:33:39 q? 17:33:48 q+ to comment on Larry's draft 17:33:53 LM: The doc't builds towards section 6, where in particular it says to add info to the registration process which the Web needs, which the email environment didn't 17:34:18 ... and then more suggestions about W3C's place in the reg. process, and about sniffing 17:34:23 ack next 17:34:25 noah, you wanted to comment on Larry's draft 17:34:26 JK: I like the sound of that 17:35:05 NM: I like this a lot, at the high level that I have reviewed it 17:35:20 ... Making clear that we're headed for chapter 6 early on would help 17:35:50 NM: I found the section on polyglot a bit unclear, without necessarily disagrees 17:36:22 ... "treated as two different media types" -- what is meant by 'document' in that case? 17:36:30 s/media/mime/ 17:36:36 specific comment: I'd like to see "prompt an evolution..." in the introduction note that the suggested evolution is written as specific recommendations in section 6 17:37:53 NM: On versioning and forking, as it stands this one is a too unaware of the tarpits here---we need to clarify what's uncontroversial and what is more speculative in this section 17:38:44 NM: In section 6, you often are a bit too elliptical---some of the recommendations need to be expressed at somewhat greater length 17:38:53 ... to avoid misunderstanding 17:39:16 LM: A bit rough, was expecting controversy 17:39:31 NM: Fine, most important then to be as crisp as possible 17:39:36 Section 6 is really rough, i was just trying to evoke things we might do.... it's certainly rough 17:39:45 LM: Looking for help here, for sure 17:40:02 specific comments on *what* is unclear would help me a lot 17:40:03 q? 17:40:10 NM: Editorial work could reduce the risk of thrashing from misunderstandings 17:40:13 ack next 17:40:21 NM: An excellent start 17:40:51 YL: Adam Barth's draft 05 is the origin of the baked-in list problem 17:40:54 masinter, noah said in particular that "Allow commenting or easier update" was unclear (e.g.) 17:41:18 LM: Do you like the proposal? 17:41:33 YL: I think having a single place where sniffing is described is good 17:41:43 ... Lists will need to be kept up-to-date 17:42:01 ... Doing that via the mime type registry might well be a good way to do that 17:42:08 NM: Anything else? 17:42:17 are you willing to consider action 5: make this a TAG submission rather than an individual one? 17:42:43 I agree with that 17:42:55 NM: Can we revisit this next week? -- yes, so please read it in detail by next week. 17:43:12 I'm happy to spend time on this 17:43:15 NM: I read the situation as TAG agreeing to pursue that, without prejudice as to the outcome 17:43:48 +1 17:43:59 ACTION-467? 17:43:59 ACTION-467 -- Larry Masinter to revise Mime & Web blog entry, perhaps leading to Internet Draft -- due 2010-09-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:43:59 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/467 17:44:03 LM: Good -- I don't feel a strong sense of ownership -- what I want most is for this to go forward, with TAG help 17:44:12 close ACTION-467 17:44:13 ACTION-467 Revise Mime & Web blog entry, perhaps leading to Internet Draft closed 17:44:22 ACTION-458 17:44:25 ACTION-458? 17:44:25 ACTION-458 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of followup actions for TAG to coordinate with IETF on MIME-type related activities -- due 2010-09-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:44:25 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/458 17:46:18 ACTION-458? 17:46:18 ACTION-458 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of followup actions for TAG to coordinate with IETF on MIME-type related activities -- due 2010-09-28 -- OPEN 17:46:18 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/458 17:46:41 Topic: Privacy Workshop 17:46:41 ACTION-460: 17:46:59 trackbot, ACTION-460? 17:46:59 Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, ACTION-460?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 17:47:03 trackbot, ACTION-460 17:47:03 Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, ACTION-460'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 17:47:17 ACTION-460? 17:47:17 ACTION-460 -- Daniel Appelquist to coordinate with IAB regarding next steps on privacy policy -- due 2010-09-14 -- OPEN 17:47:17 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/460 17:48:12 NM: This meeting is scheduled for 8,9 December in Cambridge MA 17:49:13 NM: HST queried whether we should approximate the next TAG f2f to that meeting 17:49:31 NM: It is a little close to our October and TPAC meetings 17:49:53 HST: I think we don't have enough people her today 17:50:01 NM: I am interested in attending the workshop 17:50:10 Dan is already involved... 17:50:29 ACTION: Noah to ask Thomas about TAG involvement in privacy workshop 17:50:29 Created ACTION-470 - Ask Thomas about TAG involvement in privacy workshop [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-09-30]. 17:50:35 NM: I'm inclined to ask Thomas Roessler what kind of TAG involvement he would like 17:50:55 NM: We'll talk about f2f scheduling at the f2f 17:51:06 Topic: Evercookies 17:51:12 NM: See thread in www-tag 17:51:37 NM: Using local storage for more persistent cookies 17:52:00 ... was being done ad-hoc, now the Evercookie library automates this 17:52:34 ... which works hard to preserve itself 17:52:43 it was very clear that the purpose was to raise an alarm. 17:53:20 LM: This cuts across webarch 17:53:24 ... there's no simple fix 17:53:36 NM: We are writing about good practice 17:53:50 ... for webapps 17:53:58 ... including privacy and client-side storage 17:54:18 ... and had noted some confusion between cookies and client-side storage 17:54:27 q+ to point out that 'erase history' isn't part of web arch now 17:54:34 NM: So we could push for some good practice in this area 17:54:43 q+ to mention AM's email 17:55:18 NM: Clear cookies, user says sure, clear storage -- oh no, that's my email 17:55:56 JK: That's the problem, these are generic mechanisms, it's hard to see how a UA could offer anything appropriately targetted 17:56:18 NM: You could ask "Do you want to delete storage from site: xxx" 17:56:37 there are several parts of what it takes to actually use the web & support it that might not be part of web architecture as originally designed, and that retrofitting them is difficult; phishing, for example, attacks something that was never directly part of what we thought was "web architecture" 17:56:43 q+ ht2 to say "arms race" 17:56:51 ack net 17:56:52 ack next 17:56:54 masinter, you wanted to point out that 'erase history' isn't part of web arch now 17:57:17 LM: Note that "Delete my history" is not currently part of any spec or recommendation 17:57:29 ... it's just something that browsers _do_ 17:57:44 NM: Indeed, Web Apps can go places we haven't gone before 17:58:10 LM: Phishing is another example -- where the exploit does involve some aspects of Web Arch 17:58:39 ... there is no where that specifies that UAs should show you where you are in non-spoofable ways 17:58:56 ack next 17:58:58 ht, you wanted to mention AM's email 17:59:03 HST: I don't think we've ever said "UAs should show you where you are" in so many words, at all??? 17:59:10 there's probably a lot more things like this 17:59:35 HST: Ashok just sent email saying that he'll add something about evercookie to client side storage paper for F2F 17:59:36 ack next 17:59:38 ht2, you wanted to say "arms race" 17:59:58 what are the requirements for the web? 18:00:03 HST: AM is going to include something about this in his paper on client-side storage for the F2F 18:00:30 HST: I worry about calling for an arms race. Could happen whether we do or don't, but it's a worry. 18:01:10 HST: Client-side stored material is used for so many different things. Making the evercookie look like email, for example, is going to make it hard for browsers to do the right thing. Impossible task. 18:01:47 NM: Yes, maybe we just need the press to do this for it 18:01:54 ack next 18:02:10 s/for it/for us by raising the alarm/ 18:02:44 Secure Information Flow Analysis ?? 18:02:50 YL: Studying all the ways C-S S is happening is a good idea independently of the Evercoookie issue 18:03:13 Topic: Overdue actions 18:03:42 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner 18:04:05 ACTION-416? 18:04:05 ACTION-416 -- John Kemp to work on diagrams in "From Server-side to client-side" section of webapps material -- due 2010-09-01 -- OPEN 18:04:05 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/416 18:04:57 ACTION 416 Due: 2010-10-11 18:04:57 Sorry, couldn't find user - 416 18:05:15 ACTION 416 Due 2010-10-11 18:05:15 Sorry, couldn't find user - 416 18:05:30 action-416 due 2010-10-11 18:05:30 ACTION-416 Work on diagrams in "From Server-side to client-side" section of webapps material due date now 2010-10-11 18:06:08 action-417 due 2010-10-11 18:06:08 ACTION-417 Frame section 7, security due date now 2010-10-11 18:06:30 ACTION-280? 18:06:30 ACTION-280 -- John Kemp to (with John K) to enumerate some CSRF scenarios discussed in Jun in Cambridge -- due 2010-09-01 -- OPEN 18:06:30 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/280 18:06:52 action-280 due 2010-10-11 18:06:52 ACTION-280 (with John K) to enumerate some CSRF scenarios discussed in Jun in Cambridge due date now 2010-10-11 18:07:48 action-341? 18:07:48 ACTION-341 -- Yves Lafon to follow up with Thomas about security review activities for HTML5 -- due 2010-09-01 -- OPEN 18:07:48 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/341 18:09:25 ACTION-341 due 2010-11-15 18:09:25 ACTION-341 Follow up with Thomas about security review activities for HTML5 due date now 2010-11-15 18:09:49 ACTION0404? 18:09:53 ACTION-404? 18:09:53 ACTION-404 -- Yves Lafon to track HTML WG ISSUE-27 rel-ownership -- due 2010-09-15 -- OPEN 18:09:53 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/404 18:10:20 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0043.html 18:10:55 NM: Discuss in email? 18:11:01 -John_Kemp 18:12:02 action-379? 18:12:02 ACTION-379 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check whether HTML language reference has been published -- due 2010-09-21 -- OPEN 18:12:02 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379 18:12:03 action-404 due 2010-12-02 18:12:03 ACTION-404 Track HTML WG ISSUE-27 rel-ownership due date now 2010-12-02 18:12:14 ACTION-379? 18:12:14 ACTION-379 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check whether HTML language reference has been published -- due 2010-09-21 -- OPEN 18:12:14 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379 18:12:44 bad cell zone.... I dropped off 18:13:05 question is whether http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/ meets the original requirements from TAG discussion 18:13:20 NM: Propose to close this . . . 18:13:30 Aug 19 "On 19 August call, members weren't clear on level of commitment to author-spec. Noah needs to chase down references." 18:13:41 LM: The TAG asked for something, there's a document, does it do what we want? 18:13:43 HST: No 18:14:23 NM: The action was smaller than that -- just to check that it would really be taken further 18:14:49 HST: OK, so, I don't think you get off the hook until they publish as a REC 18:15:08 LM: And, when there's a last call on this document, we should evaluate the requirement 18:15:14 s/requirement/requirements/ 18:15:38 -ht 18:15:41 s/the requirement/whether it meets the requirement/ 18:15:41 Bye Henry 18:15:49 scribenick: jar 18:16:24 noah: OK, let's keep it open until their last call (or other precipitating event) 18:16:30 ACTION-429 due 2010-10-15 18:16:30 ACTION-429 Work on arrangements for a TAG F2F, probably @ Google early Oct (self-assigned) due date now 2010-10-15 18:16:42 ACTION-449? 18:16:42 ACTION-449 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of pushback on generic handling of fragment IDs in application/xxx+xml media types (self-assigned) -- due 2010-09-16 -- OPEN 18:16:42 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/449 18:16:54 ACTION-453? 18:16:54 ACTION-453 -- Noah Mendelsohn to let 3023bis folks know that we are aiming to resolve generic processing concerns in Sept, after Larry returns. -- due 2010-09-16 -- OPEN 18:16:54 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/453 18:17:18 ACTION-466? 18:17:18 ACTION-466 -- Larry Masinter to ask Norm, Roy and Martin for concrete use cases where generic processing of fragment ids is important -- due 2010-09-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:17:18 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/466 18:17:37 masinter has 466 on this topic; it's pending review 18:17:48 close ACTION-453 18:17:48 ACTION-453 Let 3023bis folks know that we are aiming to resolve generic processing concerns in Sept, after Larry returns. closed 18:17:57 ACTION-449? 18:17:57 ACTION-449 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of pushback on generic handling of fragment IDs in application/xxx+xml media types (self-assigned) -- due 2010-09-16 -- OPEN 18:17:57 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/449 18:18:02 noah: propose to close the other two, 453 and 449 18:18:04 close action-449 18:18:04 ACTION-449 Schedule discussion of pushback on generic handling of fragment IDs in application/xxx+xml media types (self-assigned) closed 18:18:35 masinter: i used wrong action number in email, so it didn't get linked, sorry 18:19:07 ... please look at resolution of 466 18:19:40 noah: Do you want discussion next week? 18:19:57 masinter: If no response, nothing to discuss. If response, maybe something to discuss. 18:20:10 ADJOURNED 18:20:20 rrsagent, pointer? 18:20:20 See http://www.w3.org/2010/09/23-tagmem-irc#T18-20-20 18:20:33 zakim, who is here? 18:20:34 On the phone I see Yves, noah, Masinter, Jonathan_Rees 18:20:34 On IRC I see johnk, masinter, noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, jar, Yves, trackbot 18:20:38 -Masinter 18:20:40 -Yves 18:20:40 -noah 18:21:01 -Jonathan_Rees 18:21:03 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 18:21:05 Attendees were Yves, noah, Masinter, Jonathan_Rees, ht, John_Kemp 18:22:41 ah, the IRC log tells me it was done at the beginning. but thanks