TAG Teleonference

05 Dec 2013

See also: IRC log


Dan A, Peter L, Yehuda K, Yves L, Alex R, Sergey K, Henry T
Anne VK, Jeni T.
Yehuda K, Alex R.


JSON Roundup

<wycats_> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg02131.html

<slightlyoff> heya

<slightlyoff> on the way in

<slightlyoff> calling in now

<wycats_> congrats!

<slightlyoff> congrats!

<wycats_> plinss: Have people reviewed the Push API

<wycats_> wycats_: I have not

<wycats_> slightlyoff: can we talk about it next week?

<wycats_> plinss: let's defer until next week

<slightlyoff> apologies...I feel terrible about deferring

<wycats_> plinss: wycats posted a link

<slightlyoff> (will try to scribe)

<slightlyoff> wycats_: we haven't done anything different with 404 than we normally do

<slightlyoff> wycats_: and it's not more closed

<slightlyoff> wycats_: they don't like the process...but it's trending towards suggesting a chagne to the process

<slightlyoff> wycats_: it's probelmatic that IETF is saying they won't ever normatively reference "outside" specs

<wycats_> specifically TC39 specs

<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: if I were working in IETF, I'd have seen 404 as having been rushed through and ECMA as as pay-to-play org

<dka> Could TC39 address the issues raised in some other way?

<dka> I.e. guarantee a "frozen" version of ECMA-404 at a specific URL?

<slightlyoff> wycats_: there was already a JSON grammar in ECMA

<slightlyoff> wycats_: we're trying to find out why IETF wouldn't reference that

<slightlyoff> wycats_: they found the previous embedding in ECMA-262 too conjoined iwth other stuff

<slightlyoff> wycats_: hence pulling it out into it's own spec (404)

<slightlyoff> wycats_: my broader concern here is that ECMA is the entity respoinsible for JavaScript, and it's problematic that the ECMA work product isn't sufficient for IETF's needs

<dka> It seems there are two issues here - one is aligning the IETF spec with ECMA-404 and the other is establishing the normative reference. Could we separate these two issues?

<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: the problem may have been latent, and in areas with more clear ownership, it might not be a practical issue

<slightlyoff> wycats_: the first issue isn't there (Re: dka), they brought it into alignment

<slightlyoff> dka: we could give them back some positive re-enforcement about the identified incompatibilities

<slightlyoff> (solving them)

<slightlyoff> wycats_: +1

<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: +1

<slightlyoff> wycats_: the thing that TC39 was concerned about was the drift over time

<slightlyoff> wycats_: in particular, if IETF doesn't treat the ECMA work-product as a normative standard

<slightlyoff> wycats_: we want them to be in sync

<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: my goal is alignment

<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: everyone has a reason to distrust the "other side" until they get better information

<slightlyoff> wycats_: we've got a better set of incentives than that in ECMA

<dka> Can I suggest that we "capture" this as an issue and we agree to work on a number of fronts to strengthen the relationship between IETF groups, the TAG and TC-39?

<slightlyoff> wycats_: the back-compat guarantees create an iron-clad reason for 404 not to change

<ht> I've never heard IETF suggest that referencing IEEE specs is bogus

<dka> for example - PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the TAG is happy with the progress made on aligning the IETF JSON spec. In addition, we would like to see a stronger normative reference between IETF JSON and ECMA-404 and we will work towards making this and future similar cross-SDO specs work more smoothly... [or something...]

<ht> And IEEE is for sure a pay-to-play organisation

<slightlyoff> wycats_: I'm concerned about web standards referencing the IETF spec without the normative ref to ECMA spec

<slightlyoff> wycats_: concerned about Apple's spec ref-ing the IETF spec

<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: I want to get everyone to agree...wycats_, is your goal broader? to discourage ref's to the IETF spec?

<slightlyoff> wycats_: no, not so long as the iETF is a pass-through to the 404 grammar

<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: ok, I see

<wycats_> iETF is Apple's version of IETF? :P

<slightlyoff> hah

<slightlyoff> you're welcome to scribe ;-)

<wycats_> RESOLVED: the TAG is happy with the progress made on aligning the IETF JSON spec. In addition, we would like to see a stronger normative reference between IETF JSON and ECMA-404 and we will work towards making this and future similar cross-SDO specs work more smoothly.

London f2f Planning

<slightlyoff> sorry 'bout that...can continue on IRC

<slightlyoff> will try to call back in

<wycats_> dka: In terms of the developer meetup, I've been working on two possibilities

<wycats_> ... (1) The Google campus, which is close to our meeting space

<wycats_> ... we need confirmation that we can use it

<wycats_> ... (2) Backup Plan: We can hold the event at the GSMA offices

<wycats_> ... which aren't exactly walking distance to ODI, but close enough

<wycats_> ... if it's at Google it'll be the evening of the 7th

<wycats_> ... otherwise, possibly the 8th

<wycats_> ... I've been working on a venue for developer Q&A

<wycats_> plinss: are we locked down on dates?

<wycats_> dka: yes

<wycats_> dka: as far as I know we're still a go for ODI

<wycats_> ... Jeni took an action to do a logistics page

"Big Event"

<wycats_> dka: Anne had reached out to people

<slightlyoff> Zakim: ? is me

<wycats_> ... the date would be the Friday the 4th of April

<wycats_> ... but we still don't have a venue

<slightlyoff> Zakim: aabb is me

<wycats_> ... I need to find out from Anne if he got any feedback from the people he reached out to

<wycats_> ... hopefully we can come up with some backup plans

<slightlyoff> aaaahhhh...I like this = )

<wycats_> ... the idea is to do a day-long developer "Extensible Web Summit"

<slightlyoff> good name = )

<wycats_> ... get library authors together with spec authors

<wycats_> ... we just need a venue and catering

<slightlyoff> and this is in SF?

<slightlyoff> I can see what Google can do, although large-ish facilities at Google for day-long things are hard to come by

<slightlyoff> yes, I did

<slightlyoff> do need to

<wycats_> wycats_: was there any progress on removing app store dependencies from the device API specs?

<slightlyoff> also, we had a long conversation about zip URLs

<wycats_> dka: yep... we'll discuss it next week

<slightlyoff> which we didn't do anything about

<slightlyoff> yes, got the email

<wycats_> slightlyoff: confirm

<slightlyoff> sorry to have not replied yet

<slightlyoff> I'm burned by the promises thing = (

<wycats_> slightlyoff: I need to make the gist public

<slightlyoff> I can make it public

<slightlyoff> ooooh

<slightlyoff> no worries

<slightlyoff> there wasn't much/anything htere

<slightlyoff> thanks!

<slightlyoff> later

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-12-09 15:52:58 $