IRC log of tagmem on 2012-03-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:59:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:59:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:01:26 [Ashok]
trackbot, start the meeting
18:01:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
18:01:30 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TAG
18:01:30 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started
18:01:31 [trackbot]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
18:01:31 [trackbot]
Date: 08 March 2012
18:01:51 [Zakim]
18:01:53 [Ashok]
Chair: Noah
18:02:18 [Ashok]
Scribe: Ashok_Malhotra
18:02:23 [Ashok]
scribenick: Ashok
18:02:27 [ht]
18:02:43 [noah]
zakim, who is talking
18:02:43 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is talking', noah
18:02:48 [Zakim]
18:03:13 [Ashok]
regrets: Tim. Peter, Robin, Larry
18:03:46 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:03:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ht, Ashok_Malhotra, JeniT, Noah_Mendelsohn, jar
18:03:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, noah, JeniT, jar, ht, timbl, trackbot, plinss, Yves
18:04:53 [Zakim]
18:05:21 [Ashok]
Present: Noah, Ashok, Jeni, Yves, Henry, Jonathan
18:05:36 [Ashok]
Topic: Convene
18:05:56 [Ashok]
Noah: There will be a call next week.
18:06:09 [Ashok]
Approval of minutes from March 1
18:06:12 [noah]
18:06:16 [JeniT]
I thought they were very good
18:06:30 [Ashok]
Minutes approves w/o objection
18:07:14 [Ashok]
Noah: Re. IETF meeting in Paris
18:07:29 [Ashok]
Yves: Larry and I will be there.
18:08:01 [noah]
I would like to delegate the TAG coordination to Yves, if that's agreeable?
18:08:09 [JeniT]
18:08:19 [Ashok]
... will try and schedule meeting with Robin
18:09:22 [Ashok]
Noah: Thomas wantd to know which seession TAG members would attend
18:09:37 [Ashok]
... Yves, could you coordinate, please
18:09:47 [Zakim]
18:10:15 [Zakim]
18:10:41 [Ashok]
HT: We can get a free pass if we ask the Director
18:13:08 [Ashok]
Noah: There is a another URI scheme being discussed http+aes
18:13:18 [Ashok]
... should we discuss this?
18:13:54 [Ashok]
jar: We don't have TAG consensus on how this issue
18:14:26 [Ashok]
HT: I would like to discuss, please
18:14:31 [Ashok]
Ashok: +1
18:14:34 [JeniT]
18:14:37 [Yves]
18:14:45 [Ashok]
Noah: I will schedule discussion next week.
18:15:08 [Ashok]
Topic: f2f Planning
18:16:18 [Ashok]
Noah: I put in a number of links in the agenda
18:16:33 [Ashok]
... we should look at our workplan
18:16:47 [Ashok]
... Jeni had some suggestions
18:17:04 [Ashok]
... some about parallel sessions
18:17:42 [Ashok]
... I have a list of items people wanted to discuss at f2f
18:17:59 [Larry`]
Larry` has joined #tagmem
18:18:21 [Zakim]
18:18:33 [noah]
Hi Larry, we're just now starting on the F2F discussion
18:18:36 [noah]
See the Agenda
18:18:37 [Ashok]
present+: Larry
18:19:01 [Ashok]
18:19:38 [Ashok]
Jeni discusses parallel session and some longer session and some sessions with external people
18:19:50 [Ashok]
18:20:11 [noah]
18:20:25 [noah]
ack next
18:20:48 [noah]
Yes, Larry. We discussed IETF. Yves has the lead on getting IETF/TAG coordination set.
18:21:18 [noah]
AM: I somewhat disagree on parallel sessions. Work on smaller groups should be done ahead of the meeting. The plenary meeting is an opportunity to work with the group as a whole.
18:21:42 [noah]
AM: I feel that one of the valuable things about speaking to everybody is that someone whom you haven't been speaking with has a fresh perspective.
18:21:51 [noah]
AM: So, I'm negative on breakout panels.
18:21:51 [jar]
reminder, someone else brought up the idea of parallel sessions, maybe John Kemp or Dan Appelquist, about a year to two years ago, so we've already had this discussion (don't remember exactly how it came out)
18:22:17 [noah]
JT: In the ideal case you're right, but in practice we're distributed.
18:24:13 [Ashok]
Noah: I hear that parallel session take away from group interaction. OTOH, talking to people some f2f is very productive.
18:25:02 [Ashok]
... perhaps make a topic list and see how the times work out and then we can see how to split the allocate the time
18:25:34 [JeniT]
I'd also say, that we definitely should have full-group time on these sessions: I absolutely agree with Ashok's point that other people have valuable input
18:25:40 [noah]
TAG Work Plan:
18:27:05 [Ashok]
Noah: Asks about Frad Ids
18:27:07 [Zakim]
18:27:26 [Ashok]
HT: I have not done any work on this for a while
18:27:47 [Ashok]
... we can discuss this but not put this as a high priority item
18:28:01 [Ashok]
present+: Tim
18:29:09 [JeniT]
This is one of the topics where I thought some small-group F2F time would be valuable
18:29:14 [Ashok]
Noah: We should discuss how important this work is
18:29:37 [Ashok]
HT: It's important for 3023bis reasons
18:29:52 [noah]
HT: is important mainly for 3023bis reasons.
18:30:09 [Ashok]
... we should meet with Chris and find out how important this really is
18:31:37 [Ashok]
HT: It's important because specs are heading towards giving conflicting about semnatics of Frag Ids
18:32:24 [Ashok]
... specifically because 3023 is going in the direction that Frag Id semantics are generic and this conflicts with RDFa usage
18:32:25 [noah]
Proposed action: ACTION: Noah to encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers
18:32:54 [Ashok]
HT: I will try and produce something to frame the discussion
18:33:41 [JeniT]
This is also a topic I would like us to nail, to the extent that after the F2F it is possible for HT and others to document what we have agreed
18:34:07 [timbl]
18:34:08 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers - Due 2012-03-13
18:34:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-674 - encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-03-13].
18:35:32 [noah]
ACTION: Henry to frame discussion of semantics of fragids and rfc 3023bis - Due 2012-03-27
18:35:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-675 - frame discussion of semantics of fragids and rfc 3023bis [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-03-27].
18:36:00 [Ashok]
Noah: Next is Publishing and Linking
18:36:00 [noah]
NM: On to publishing and linking
18:36:35 [Ashok]
Jeni: We should get agreement and publish as a WD
18:36:37 [noah]
JT: I would like to use F2F agreement that the draft sent a week or two ago can be published as a WD. Might require line-by-line review
18:37:05 [Ashok]
18:37:29 [Ashok]
JT: Would like to work on examples
18:37:31 [noah]
NM: You want small group time specifically for examples?
18:37:37 [noah]
JT: Yes, for motivational examples
18:37:39 [noah]
ack next
18:38:22 [noah]
AM: We had spoken of publishing this as a recommendation rather than finding. Thinking about it...what are we actually recommending here? We are basically laying out the landscape. No recommendations.
18:38:35 [noah]
JT: It has best practices rather than new technologies.
18:39:06 [masinter]
the goal was to get community consensus
18:39:34 [noah]
Jeni... you said there was a draft a couple of weeks you have the link and announcement e-mail please?
18:39:44 [JeniT]
yeah, I'll find it
18:39:48 [noah]
Thank you!
18:40:05 [masinter]
we're recommending that people use this framework to talk about the problem
18:40:13 [noah]
Tempted to cut off discussion of whether it's a rec
18:40:29 [JeniT]
18:40:30 [Ashok]
Jar: If we want to get community review and consensus then a Rec is the way to do it
18:40:40 [jar]
If the goal is to gather consensus, then Rec track is our only choice.
18:41:00 [masinter]
Could we ask someone else to talk about us on the topic?
18:41:12 [JeniT]
maybe Rigo?
18:41:18 [noah]
18:41:23 [JeniT]
although we've already had him in at TPAC...
18:41:24 [noah]
TAG Product: URI Documentation Discovery
18:41:43 [noah]
httpRange-14 change proposals seem like the main focus for now, right?
18:41:44 [Ashok]
Next Topic: URI Documentation and Discovery
18:43:02 [Ashok]
Noah: How should be organize discussion?
18:43:07 [noah]
NM: I just need to know how to plan F2F sessions. How many sessions, how long? Anything special I need to do to focus the discussion.
18:43:26 [JeniT]
18:43:27 [Ashok]
Jar: I hope we get more input and then decide what advice to give
18:44:08 [noah]
JAR: Hope to have more input than we have so far, goal is (ideally) to figure out what our consensus message should be moving forward. Then we can figure out how to document it. In any case, no separate sessions.
18:44:10 [noah]
ack next
18:44:17 [noah]
JT: When are the proposals due?
18:44:22 [Ashok]
JT: Will the change proposals be in by the f2f?
18:44:22 [noah]
JAR: 29 March
18:44:41 [Ashok]
jar: I asked then to submit by March 29
18:45:08 [noah]
AM: What if we get nothing?
18:45:12 [darobin]
darobin has joined #tagmem
18:45:15 [masinter]
I'm more convinced than ever that the document makes fundamental assumption that are incorrect, that URIs are intrinsically ambiguous carrying "meaning" and that the "change proposal" process presumes agreement about the problem statement and only want to argue about solutions
18:45:36 [noah]
JAR: Seems to mean those people don't care to participate in consensus process. We then move down the rec track and see if that gets attention, or kick it onto a different path.
18:45:39 [masinter]
Is there anyone willing to spend an hour or two on the phone with me talking about this?
18:45:41 [Ashok]
jar: Then people are saying they don't care or don't want to engageg with us
18:46:03 [Ashok]
... that's what we should decide at f2f ... or try a different tack
18:46:07 [Zakim]
18:46:38 [Ashok]
Larry: I can talk with JAR on the phone about this before the f2f
18:47:07 [masinter]
s/JAR/JAR or anyone else/
18:48:15 [masinter]
i don't want to spend TAG time on the discussion if I can't make progress convincing anyone 1-1
18:49:06 [noah]
NM: Uhh...
18:49:14 [masinter]
contrapositive: if no one is willing to talk about it 1-1, we shouldn't spend TAG time on it
18:49:16 [noah]
JAR: I can talk to Larry, with or without Ashok.
18:49:34 [noah]
NM: For now, I won't schedule httpRange14 next week, but just ask if you want it
18:49:56 [Ashok]
Next topic: MIME type
18:50:54 [Ashok]
Larry: There is stuff happening at IETF e.g. Happiana ... maybe we can review that
18:51:07 [Ashok]
18:51:51 [Ashok]
18:52:27 [Ashok]
Noah: Larry, you wanted to do other things with other TAG members
18:53:18 [Ashok]
Larry: There are some workshops e.g. Language Evolution that may be intersting ...
18:53:27 [Ashok]
Noah: This is after the f2f?
18:53:43 [Ashok]
Larry: Yes, about 10 days after
18:54:00 [masinter]
The PhiloWeb 2012 workshop might
18:54:19 [Ashok]
Noah: We can decide this is no longer a major effort
18:54:42 [Ashok]
... you were going to draft a close-out page
18:54:55 [Ashok]
Noah: I need to know what success is
18:55:05 [masinter]
I don't have an opinion about TAG planning for future work
18:55:12 [masinter]
I have opinions about the technology
18:57:01 [noah]
Noah: OK, then I will make the decision that we ramp this down as a high priority effort for of us needs to update the product page to say that (TBD). We can continue to track the IETF happiani work as you suggest
18:58:30 [Ashok]
Noah: Should we have a seesion on happiana and related things or a session on what happened at IETF?
18:58:32 [masinter]
I defer to Yves for votes on what he thinks will be helpful for the TAG to discuss
18:58:50 [masinter]
zakim, who's here
18:58:50 [Zakim]
masinter, you need to end that query with '?'
18:58:54 [Yves]
it will depends on what happens during IETF
18:58:59 [noah]
NM: Will later need input on what IETF-related sessions we want at the F2F. Could be overall debrief on Paris meetings and/or more specific sessions, e.g. on hiappiana and registries.
19:00:30 [Ashok]
Noah: Should we discuss TAG effectiveness ... we can think about this and discuss later
19:00:39 [Ashok]
HT: No, thank you!
19:01:19 [Ashok]
Tim: Supports Henry!
19:02:04 [Ashok]
Noah: I will schedule session on API Minimization
19:02:18 [masinter]
has there been any feedback on the documents now released?
19:02:32 [Ashok]
Noah: Re: XML/HTML Unification not sure if there is anything new
19:02:39 [masinter]
wait for feedback
19:03:07 [Ashok]
Tim: We should have a session if we get sufficient feedback
19:03:13 [noah]
19:03:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-657 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon discussion of possible XML/HTML Unification next steps -- due 2012-03-06 -- OPEN
19:03:13 [trackbot]
19:03:24 [masinter]
encourage feedback? Ask for feedback at WWW2012?
19:03:41 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to check with Norm whether there is sufficient feedback on HTML/XML to merit F2F discussion
19:03:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-676 - Check with Norm whether there is sufficient feedback on HTML/XML to merit F2F discussion [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-03-15].
19:03:45 [Zakim]
19:04:05 [Zakim]
19:05:13 [Ashok]
Noah: Should we discuss PhiloWeb at f2f?
19:05:23 [noah]
NM: Do you think the PhiloWeb thing merits TAG F2F discussion?
19:05:26 [Ashok]
Larry: Henry will you be there?
19:05:34 [Ashok]
HT: Yes, I will be there
19:09:45 [masinter]
Yes, I will be at PhiloWeb 2012 and will likely present slides I originally put together for TAG talking about versioning, registries, etc.
19:09:53 [Ashok]
Next Topic: Persistence of Identifiers
19:10:10 [Ashok]
HT: Nothing new since January
19:10:25 [Ashok]
... nothing will happen between now and the f2f
19:10:41 [Ashok]
... I do not want f2f time for this
19:10:46 [noah]
HT: No F2F time on persistence of identifiers please
19:11:14 [Zakim]
19:11:20 [noah]
NM: Web app storage...will you have a draft for F2F
19:11:53 [noah]
AM: If we agreed on Product page today, I could start working with Robin and maybe Larry, and then depending on how that goes, we see what I can draft.
19:13:07 [noah]
NM: If I switch to discussing storage now, does that buy you a week of preparing drafts?
19:13:14 [noah]
AM: Not needed, I'll move ahead.
19:13:27 [noah]
AM: So, can go ahead with F2F planning.
19:13:40 [noah]
NM: Should I assume a session on storage draft?
19:13:49 [noah]
AM: Will tell you next week.
19:13:57 [noah]
NM: Fine, but please remind me if I forget to ask.
19:15:10 [Ashok]
Next Topic: Items TAG members have asked to discuss at f2f
19:17:07 [noah]
19:17:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-594 -- Yves Lafon to with Peter and Henry produce partial revision of fragment id finding -- due 2012-03-13 -- OPEN
19:17:07 [trackbot]
19:17:33 [noah]
19:17:33 [trackbot]
ACTION-619 -- Henry Thompson to report on status of 3023bis after TPAC -- due 2012-02-14 -- OPEN
19:17:33 [trackbot]
19:18:40 [noah]
19:18:40 [trackbot]
ACTION-672 -- Jeni Tennison to work with PLH to create W3C-sponsored registry of HTML extensions, and get that referenced from HTML media type registration, per -- due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN
19:18:40 [trackbot]
19:19:20 [noah]
LM: Some e-mail, but so far no need for F2F discussion.
19:19:34 [noah]
19:19:34 [trackbot]
ACTION-590 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up with Addison Phillips on Unicode normalization -- due 2011-08-30 -- CLOSED
19:19:34 [trackbot]
19:19:43 [noah]
19:19:43 [trackbot]
ACTION-560 -- Henry Thompson to review HTML polyglot last call Due 2011-06-06 -- due 2012-02-28 -- OPEN
19:19:43 [trackbot]
19:20:48 [noah]
NM: I'll check with Henry on ACTION-560
19:20:58 [noah]
19:20:58 [trackbot]
ACTION-572 -- Yves Lafon to look at appcache in HTML5 -- due 2012-03-06 -- OPEN
19:20:58 [trackbot]
19:21:30 [noah]
YL: We can discuss at F2F.
19:21:33 [noah]
AM: I agree
19:21:44 [Ashok]
Yves: We can discuss at f2f when we discuss client-side storage
19:22:20 [noah]
19:22:20 [trackbot]
ACTION-658 -- Yves Lafon to prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN
19:22:20 [trackbot]
19:22:28 [noah]
19:22:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-659 -- Yves Lafon to track IETF efforts on HTTP 2.0 & SPDY Due: 2012-03-20 -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN
19:22:28 [trackbot]
19:22:55 [noah]
YL: Following charter work on IETF mailing list
19:23:35 [noah]
YL: For websockets and hybi we decided not a big issue...related to death of protocol for Edinburgh.
19:23:42 [Ashok]
... we might drop this one
19:23:53 [noah]
19:23:53 [trackbot]
ACTION-658 -- Yves Lafon to prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN
19:23:53 [trackbot]
19:24:03 [masinter]
fine with me to close
19:24:08 [noah]
NM: Any objection to closing ACTION-658?
19:24:12 [noah]
close ACTION-658
19:24:12 [trackbot]
ACTION-658 Prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) closed
19:24:54 [Ashok]
NM: On SPDY you are saying let's just watch what IETF is saying
19:25:04 [Ashok]
Yves: Yes
19:25:20 [noah]
AM: What happened to CA authority item.
19:25:56 [Ashok]
19:26:28 [noah]
NM: Good question. Just now, I'm not seeing any actions.
19:26:36 [noah]
AM: probably OK.
19:27:18 [noah]
NM: Do we want F2F discussion of CA problems this time?
19:27:41 [noah]
TBL: A lot of people have been rushing to "fix" this. Firefox has made significant updates.
19:28:09 [Ashok]
Tim: This is separate from general security and privacy issues
19:28:39 [noah]
NM: Right, sorry, I agree. I meant to ask if we need another F2F session on CA in particular.
19:28:52 [noah]
TBL: Not unless we have news from an expert on late breaking details?
19:29:33 [Zakim]
19:29:43 [Ashok]
Noah: For now we will leave this issue off the agenda
19:29:52 [Ashok]
19:29:53 [Zakim]
19:29:54 [Zakim]
19:29:54 [Zakim]
19:30:02 [Zakim]
19:30:05 [Zakim]
19:30:07 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
19:30:07 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, ht, JeniT, jar, Yves, Masinter, TimBL
19:30:12 [jar]
timbl, I pinged you in email about f2f support
19:30:12 [Yves]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:30:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
21:16:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
23:16:52 [timbl__]
timbl__ has joined #tagmem