TAG issue review - JAR

[Jonathan Rees-3]

Following Larry's lead, I'll report on my TAG issues...

AFAIK the only issue I'm supposed to be supervising is ISSUE-57, and I
already wrote a summary of its condition:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jun/0057.html

Nothing much has changed since then, although I should mention a
couple of things:

- The HTTP semantics ("AWWSW") work is being tracked under this issue
(and the group has worked on redirection semantics from time to time,
with little convergence)

- The question of correct use of content negotiation (especially
around RDF) is hanging, and we've been asked to make a determination
on it. I think this is being tracked under ISSUE-57, probably because
we didn't want to open an issue for it (we probably should)

- I think the TAG ought to take httpRange-14 forward, as Roy's cryptic
email has numerous bugs in it and I don't consider the SWEO note to be
an adequate specification. I'd be happy to work on a SHORT finding on
the subject - if today's TAG can manage to stand by some form of the
2005 decision, which seems to be in question.

Jonathan

[noah_mendelsohn]

Thank you. Just going over backlogged email, I'm reminded of your interest
in CORs.  If you want to see the TAG pursue this, please either make a
proposal, or find the shepherd for whichever issue(s) you consider
pertinent and work with him.

Jonathan's note reminds me:  while I'm trying to use the shepherds as
focal points for each issue, what I really want is to be sure we're not
dropping the ball on anything.  If you know of something that you feel the
TAG should be working on in coming weeks/months, please work with the
appropriate shepherd to be sure we're tracking it, or else alert me that
you couldn't find a suitable issue/shepherd.  Thank you.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Jonathan Rees <jar@...>
10/18/2009 06:57 PM
 
        To:     Larry Masinter <masinter@...>
        cc:     "noah_mendelsohn@..." <noah_mendelsohn@...>,
"www-tag@..." <www-tag@...>
        Subject:        TAG issue review - JAR


Following Larry's lead, I'll report on my TAG issues...

AFAIK the only issue I'm supposed to be supervising is ISSUE-57, and I
already wrote a summary of its condition:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jun/0057.html

Nothing much has changed since then, although I should mention a
couple of things:

- The HTTP semantics ("AWWSW") work is being tracked under this issue
(and the group has worked on redirection semantics from time to time,
with little convergence)

- The question of correct use of content negotiation (especially
around RDF) is hanging, and we've been asked to make a determination
on it. I think this is being tracked under ISSUE-57, probably because
we didn't want to open an issue for it (we probably should)

- I think the TAG ought to take httpRange-14 forward, as Roy's cryptic
email has numerous bugs in it and I don't consider the SWEO note to be
an adequate specification. I'd be happy to work on a SHORT finding on
the subject - if today's TAG can manage to stand by some form of the
2005 decision, which seems to be in question.

Jonathan

[Jonathan Rees-3]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:36 PM,  <noah_mendelsohn@...> wrote:
> Thank you. Just going over backlogged email, I'm reminded of your interest
> in CORs.  If you want to see the TAG pursue this, please either make a
> proposal, or find the shepherd for whichever issue(s) you consider
> pertinent and work with him.

I've suggested that we wait until the WG requests review of a working
draft. If they haven't ironed out their internal differences around
stack introspection and confused deputy attacks by then, the TAG
should take a hard look at what the WG is getting themselves into,
since the WG is creating what could end up being a central piece of
web architecture, and a magnet for attacks.

Of course it would be nice if someone else on the TAG looked at the
editor's draft and the debate and not wait for a working draft, just
so we have as many minds on this as we can afford.

I wouldn't mind if there were an issue to track this under.

Jonathan

> Jonathan's note reminds me:  while I'm trying to use the shepherds as
> focal points for each issue, what I really want is to be sure we're not
> dropping the ball on anything.  If you know of something that you feel the
> TAG should be working on in coming weeks/months, please work with the
> appropriate shepherd to be sure we're tracking it, or else alert me that
> you couldn't find a suitable issue/shepherd.  Thank you.
>
> Noah
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Rees <jar@...>
> 10/18/2009 06:57 PM
>
>        To:     Larry Masinter <masinter@...>
>        cc:     "noah_mendelsohn@..." <noah_mendelsohn@...>,
> "www-tag@..." <www-tag@...>
>        Subject:        TAG issue review - JAR
>
>
> Following Larry's lead, I'll report on my TAG issues...
>
> AFAIK the only issue I'm supposed to be supervising is ISSUE-57, and I
> already wrote a summary of its condition:
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jun/0057.html
>
> Nothing much has changed since then, although I should mention a
> couple of things:
>
> - The HTTP semantics ("AWWSW") work is being tracked under this issue
> (and the group has worked on redirection semantics from time to time,
> with little convergence)
>
> - The question of correct use of content negotiation (especially
> around RDF) is hanging, and we've been asked to make a determination
> on it. I think this is being tracked under ISSUE-57, probably because
> we didn't want to open an issue for it (we probably should)
>
> - I think the TAG ought to take httpRange-14 forward, as Roy's cryptic
> email has numerous bugs in it and I don't consider the SWEO note to be
> an adequate specification. I'd be happy to work on a SHORT finding on
> the subject - if today's TAG can manage to stand by some form of the
> 2005 decision, which seems to be in question.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>

[Anne van Kesteren-2]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:21:19 +0200, Jonathan Rees  
<jar@...> wrote:

> I've suggested that we wait until the WG requests review of a working
> draft. If they haven't ironed out their internal differences around
> stack introspection and confused deputy attacks by then, the TAG
> should take a hard look at what the WG is getting themselves into,
> since the WG is creating what could end up being a central piece of
> web architecture, and a magnet for attacks.
>
> Of course it would be nice if someone else on the TAG looked at the
> editor's draft and the debate and not wait for a working draft, just
> so we have as many minds on this as we can afford.
>
> I wouldn't mind if there were an issue to track this under.

If you have additional data the WG should be considering I suggest you do  
so soon. Given the discussion so far I (and others) are not convinced  
there is an issue.

We have two minor issues scheduled for discussion at TPAC (see  
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/7 for details) and I think  
that after that the draft is ready for Last Call.


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/