Subject: [apps-discuss] IETF 85 Agenda

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 23:01:27 -0700

Colleagues,

We've uploaded a preliminary agenda for our meeting in Atlanta next
Monday.  It's available here:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-appsawg

If you requested a slot and we did not assign you one, please drop us
a note.  Also, if your assigned slot is too long or not long enough,
please drop us a note.

If you have been assigned a slot to discuss an active working group
document, please provide a list of specific open issues that need
discussion at the meeting.  Time slots about WG drafts should be used
to discuss open issues, not to do document walk-throughs or recap
resolved issues.

Finally, we need to secure presentations from people representing BoFs
or new working groups.  If anyone on this list is such a person and
would like to volunteer to discuss same, please let us know so we can
assign a name to the slot.

Thanks, see you all in Atlanta.

-MSK, co-chair

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:17:38 -0700

>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-appsawg

I guess that the author of draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri open issues 
won't be able to be physically present to discuss the draft due to 
visa issues. :-)

Are there any Internet-Drafts I should read to be able to follow the 
discussion about the following topics:

  - Service Discovery Topics
  - JSON Content Rules
  - DMARC

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:27:09 +0100

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-appsawg

Could we please start a concerted effort to get the secretariat to finally present text/plain as UTF-8?

(I tried once, and then a random Windows user had a strange problem with some Windows tool inserting BOMs, messing up their ASCII processing chain, and the secretariat backed down.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:41:42 -0400

SM,

> discussion about the following topics:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-json-content-rules-00

-andy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:21:11 -0400

>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-appsawg

Murray,

A suggestion for either the Appsawg or Appsarea part of the
meeting.  There have been several ongoing threads on the
Webfinger and Json issues that seem to cover more territory than
the three drafts that are listed on your agenda.   I admit to
not having read nearly every message on those threads, partially
because I've been busy with "day job" stuff but also because
some of the arguments seem to be about very small issues that
need to be settled but that probably make little difference in
the grand scheme of things.

The net result is that I'm too bewildered and confused about
what is actually going on to be able to participate
constructively in a LC review.

Perhaps I'm the only AppsAWG participant who is in that position
but, if  there are a non-trivial number of others, I think it
would be _really_ helpful -- far more helpful than just ten
minute presentations on a few  drafts -- to get a serious
presentation or two on these topics, their context, what the
open issues are today, and what new work and issues are likely
to appear in the relatively near future.  

I'd prefer to see that before draft-specific presentations /
discussions rather than instead of them but, if I had to choose,
I'd argue that the overviews are much more important.  Without
those overviews, some of us may not be able to participate
meaningfully in the WGLC.  With them, if the drafts are not
close to self-explanatory, that is a defect that ought to be
fixed prior to IETF LC anyway.

In a normal WG with a single topic area, this request would be
unnecessary and unreasonable because we would expect all
participants to be thoroughly familiar with the WG task area,
one that would be documented in the charter or in supplementary
"framework", "overview", and/or "requirements" documents.  But
AppsAWG is just too broad for that expectation to be reasonable.

I could probably make similar comments about the URI work
cluster, but I think that, after years of URx WGs and efforts,
more or us are familiar with the general context of what is
going on there.  In the webfinger and json cases, there has
never been a topic-focused IETF WG that could be drawn on for
context.

  best,
   john

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:32:22 -0700

>  - Service Discovery Topics

This may be merged with the webfinger material earlier in the session.
 There's not a draft at this point that I know of.

>  - JSON Content Rules

Andy provided one separately.  I'll update the agenda to reference it shortly.

>  - DMARC

DMARC hasn't been submitted yet as an I-D, but there is one available.
 I'll add a link to it to the agenda soon.  This presentation is more
preliminary; the group promoting it will likely be requesting a BoF
after the Atlanta meeting, but is seeking early feedback and
participation.

-MSK

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:27:42 -0700

Hello,

Thanks to Murray and Andy for the replies.  The following comments 
are not directed at them.

>This may be merged with the webfinger material earlier in the session.

There's a "Service Discovery Topics" item which is preceded by a lot 
of webfinger material.  If I recall correctly, discussions about 
these topics previously generated long discussions.  May I suggest a 
"do we need a working group" for all that?

>Andy provided one separately.  I'll update the agenda to reference it shortly.

There's an item about "Do we need a JSON Working Group?".  It is 
followed by some previews and then there is "JSON Content 
Rules".  Could a merge be considered?

BTW, the above are merely suggestions.  It is ok not to reply to this message.

Regards,
-sm