Subject: [apps-discuss] Minutes for AppsAWG and Apps Area General Session, IETF 82

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:35:03 +0800

I've posted minutes on the meeting materials site.  Find them here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/appsawg.txt

Barry, appsawg chair

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:09:28 +0000

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/appsawg.txt

Noting:
[[
09:35 draft-gregorio-uritemplate (Nottingham)

Ted Hardie: This is useful, but has been around for a while, with
different authors.  Need to get this done soon, so it doesn't languish
again.
]]

Yes please!  I'm currently working on a W3C spec that intends to cite this.  I 
assumed it was about to go LC.

#g
--

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:32:18 +0000

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/appsawg.txt

Re:
-----
11:20 Basic Device Classification (Bruce Nordman) - 5 min
    draft-nordman-classification

Looking for assitance/comment/collaboration.
Want to make a registry for generic device "names", as known by humans.
"computer", "projector", that sort of thing.
question about properties vs names, and what the use case is.
question about behaviour of devices, related to proerties vs names.
answer: Not addressing functional aspects of the devices.
question: Why is "what they are" useful?  Unclear on purpose.
CORE could use something like this, but needs *types*, rather than names.
-----

My first thought was: "OMG, are the IETF going to do ontologies now?" :)

I'm ambivalent whether this activity is of value in an IETF context - I'm not 
seeing it yet.

But some thoughts did occur to me:
(1) the discussion may be not-unrelated to recent discussion of top level MIME 
types (font/*, etc.)
(2) there are some other past activities that could relate to this
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3458.txt - "Message Context"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2506 - "Media features"

#g
--

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:37:33 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 12:09 AM
> To: Apps Discuss
> Subject: [apps-discuss] draft-gregorio-uritemplate (was: Minutes for AppsAWG and Apps Area General Session, IETF 82)
> 
> Yes please!  I'm currently working on a W3C spec that intends to cite
> this.  I assumed it was about to go LC.

(As I said in appsawg today)

+1 to this.  REPUTE (currently) plans to use it.  Happy to help however I can, including shepherding.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:42:08 +0800

> +1 to this.  REPUTE (currently) plans to use it.  Happy to help however I can, including shepherding.

<hat type='AD'/>

Murray, if you will volunteer to be the document shepherd, then I will 
volunteer to progress this specification as AD-sponsored rather than 
asking the APPSAWG to take this on as a WG item. IMHO this document has 
received a great deal of review on the [email-masked] list (etc.) over the 
years, and we can encourage further reviews during IETF Last Call.

Thanks!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 03:14:20 -0800

> From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:42 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: Apps Discuss
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-gregorio-uritemplate
> 

I'm in.  Your move.  :-)

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:18:57 +0800

>> years, and we can encourage further reviews during IETF Last Call.

It's now in the datatracker with a state of "AD Evaluation". :)