gmane.ietf.w3c

Fwd: [Json] WG Action: Formed JavaScript Object Notation (json)

Mark Nottingham — 2013-06-01T03:14:49

FYI.

Begin forwarded message:


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Fwd: [new-work] WG Review: JavaScript Object Notation (json)

Mark Nottingham — 2013-05-20T01:24:51

Just to make sure people saw this...

Begin forwarded message:


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

[minutes] 20120305 IETF/W3C

Philippe Le Hegaret — 2013-03-15T13:20:12

W3C/IETF meeting - March 5, 2013
==========================

Present:
- Philippe Le Hegaret
- Alissa Cooper
- Stephen Farrrell
- Sean Turner
- Barry Leiba
- Mark Nottingham
- Julian Reschke
- John Klensin
- Pete Resnick

Regrets: Thomas Roessler

### Javascript Object Notation BOF

Philippe: what is this BOF and how does it relate to the ECMA/TC 39
work?

Mark: Doug Crockford wrote an informational RFC to define JSON.  It's
now
used by a whole lot of standards-track specs.

Barry: the ECMA document points to the RFC as the definitive reference

Mark: many complain that referencing ECMA since it's too specific to
one implementation

Barry: there is consensus on the list to minimize changes in 4627bis.

Mark: yes, making large changes will be difficult.
… and is a bad idea.

### Update IPR Policy BOF 

Barry: there is a draft with the proposed changes. It makes
clarifications. The principal changes are clarifying oral statements,
lurker disclosure responsibilities, etc. ie closing up some of the
holes. I exp

Tracking media-type registration requests

Barry Leiba — 2013-03-12T17:51:48

An issue was brought up in the last liaison call (folks will see this
in the upcoming minutes):


I have checked on this.  When one makes a registration request of
IANA, one should get a ticket number.  One can then go here:

   https://tools.iana.org/public-view/

...and enter the ticket number to get the status of the request.

If it's still "difficult to track" your requests, even with that,
please let me know specifically what's difficult, and what you would
like to have, and I'll see what I can do about that.

Barry

Fwd: WG Action: Formed Web PKI OPS (wpkops)

Thomas Roessler — 2013-02-26T18:02:58

fyi

Fwd: WG Review: JSON data formats for vCard and iCalendar (jcardcal)

Thomas Roessler — 2013-02-25T14:25:54

FYI.  This work sounds like it might overlap with some of the work in the W3C systems API and device API Working Groups.  Probably worth discussing in some detail on the next liaison call.

Re: [jose] draft revision to JOSE charter

Thomas Roessler — 2013-01-25T07:44:09

From a process perspective, my recommendation would be for Web Crypto to review the JOSE deliverables *before* they hit last call.  

What would be a good time for that from the Jose WG's perspective?

Thanks,

Re: Round 2: Proposed IETF Meeting Dates 2018 - 2022

Mark Nottingham — 2012-11-23T10:00:13

I'd love to, but AIUI both are EXTREMELY hard to move.


On 23/11/2012, at 6:13 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter< at >adobe.com> wrote:


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

FW: Round 2: Proposed IETF Meeting Dates 2018 - 2022

Larry Masinter — 2012-11-23T07:13:15

IAOC is setting IETF dates.

Is there effort to coordinate IETF and W3C (annual) TPAC  to facilitate attending both?

Re: W3C's position on RTCWEB mandatory to implement video codec

Cullen Jennings (fluffy — 2012-11-13T16:11:31

This has been entered in the IETF liaison tool at 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1215/


On Nov 2, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Thomas Roessler <tlr< at >w3.org> wrote:

Re: W3C's position on RTCWEB mandatory to implement video codec

Thomas Roessler — 2012-11-02T16:59:38

Redirecting to the correct address of the W3C/IETF coordination list.



On 2012-11-02, at 17:05 +0100, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh< at >w3.org> wrote:

Re: IETF/W3C session at W3C TPAC and/or IETF Atlanta

Stefan Hakansson LK — 2012-10-23T15:39:00

I'd be interested in that! (As long as it doesn't collide with the 
session of fingerprinting being a lost cause). Stefan

IETF/W3C session at W3C TPAC and/or IETF Atlanta

Larry Masinter — 2012-10-21T23:59:58

Anyone going to TPAC interested in an IETF/W3C session on plenary day?  

http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012/SessionIdeas

Following, anyone going to IETF Atlanta interested in a Bar BOF ?

The issues I'd like to discuss are URL vs. IRI, HTTP 2.0, testing and test frameworks, MIME type registrations, fragment identifiers, registerXXXHandler, and the HTML "willful violations" and how to coordinate updates.

URL work in HTML 5

Larry Masinter — 2012-10-13T19:55:45

I know there are a lot of private conversations about this, but I'd like to try, in the time frame of the next W3C TPAC and IETF meetings, to work out a solution to the issue of "forking" the URL specifications. Does everyone know what the issues are?
Is everyone willing to talk about solutions?

I think forking is harmful and unnecessary. 

Bcc:  "public-ietf-w3c< at >w3.org"  IETF W3C Liaison
           "public-webapps< at >w3.org" W3C Web Applications group chartered to work on something in W3C URL releated
         "www-tag< at >w3.org" W3C Technical Architecture Group, since we discussed it
        " public-iri< at >w3.org" mailing list of IETF IRI working group, responsible for IRI spec

Did I leave anyone out?

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

Minutes from 1/10/12 IETF/W3C Liaison Call

Mark Nottingham — 2012-10-10T21:00:56

IETF/W3C Liaison Call

Monday, October 1 2012

Present: Mark Nottingham, Barry Leiba, Pete Resnick, Philippe le Hegaret, Stephen Farrell, Julian Reschke, John Klensin, Peter St. Andre

1. IRI WG status

Pete: asks about WG status. Has seen various messages, e.g., on apps-discuss. IRI mailing list has been near-dead. 

John: List has been very "spurty."  Might be worse than dead :)

Pete: Has seen messages from Anne van Kesteren about starting work again in WHATWG drafts.

John: Other issue is that I still don't know what they're trying to accomplish. No clear answer.

Pete: Right. 

Barry: I would be happy to see it closed.

Pete: I would not be deeply offended.

Mnot: would be happy to see it as well; work in W3C/WHATWG is fine. only concern is that relationship to existing work needs to be defined; not clear whether Anne was just being provocative when he said that he wanted to obsolete the URI/IRI RFCs, or if he was serious.

Plh: Anne doesn't participate in the WG; he's still active on the list, but not

RE: web+ and registerProtocolHandler

Larry Masinter — 2012-09-22T16:14:42

Following the instructions in http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html under "Status of This document" 21 September 2012
" If you wish to make comments regarding this document in a manner that is tracked by the W3C, please submit them via using our public bug database... "

I have submitted  https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18975 

"registerContentHandler and registerProtocolHandler open huge security and privacy holes"

Re: web+ and registerProtocolHandler

Robin Berjon — 2012-09-21T08:54:23

No it's not. The WG is a great place to talk to implementers. I'm merely providing advice about how to best be successful with bringing your concerns to fruition — it's naturally entirely up to you whether to follow this advice or not.

Re: web+ and registerProtocolHandler

Julian Reschke — 2012-09-21T08:27:22

Well.

We're talking about a HTML spec feature that is very controversial, as 
was the chair's decision to keep it.

It's up to the WG to decide what's in and what's not. The WG (through 
Philippe) has asked for feedback over here, and there was feedback.

At this point, this feedback should be forwarded to the WG.

Asking to talk to implementers sounds like moving goal posts.

Best regards, Julian

Re: web+ and registerProtocolHandler

Robin Berjon — 2012-09-21T08:22:14

Oh, if you're talking about that side of the problem, then sure. I'm not convinced that having the ability to register link relations handlers would actually work (but I'd be happy to see examples). If your point is that the number of innovations that ought to require a new URI scheme is small, then I agree. If you think that that makes the case against web+ then I think you have a point.

But as Adam keeps saying, you're probably convincing the wrong people here. You need to speak to the implementers, and to the developers who wish to rely on such features.

Re: web+ and registerProtocolHandler

Adam Barth — 2012-09-19T22:03:08

Are you just declaring that to be true, or have to gotten agreement
from the relevant stakeholders?  My understanding is that
registerProtocolHandler and registerContentHandler are currently
envisioned as APIs for the web at large.


The SysApps working group has more work to do than bandwidth at the
moment.  Any deliverables that we move into SysApps will need to be
prioritized along with our current work.

Adam

RE: web+ and registerProtocolHandler

Larry Masinter — 2012-09-19T21:48:35

Re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2012Sep/0035.html
     http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/timers.html#custom-handlers 

As system level APIs that persistently affect any application that uses a URL or interprets a media type, and not just the browser and site which invoked them initially, registerProtocolHandler and registerContentHandler need the security model of a system-level application.  

I believe W3C should move "registerProtocolHandler" and "registerContentHandler" to the proposed  Sysapps working group, http://www.w3.org/2012/05/sysapps-wg-charter.html  where they can get proper attention. 

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net