Request HR of IMSC 1.2

[nigelmegitt]

As agreed at https://www.w3.org/2019/10/10-tt-minutes.html#x03 request HR of IMSC 1.2:

• accessibility - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Oct/0041.html
• internationalization - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Oct/0040.html
• privacy - see response from Jeffrey Yaskin at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Nov/0011.html also response from Nick Doty at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2020Mar/0013.html and tracked at TTML Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.2 w3cping/privacy-request#2
• security - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-security/2020Feb/0002.html
• TAG - HR review of IMSC 1.2 FPWD w3ctag/design-reviews#474
• performance

[nigelmegitt]

Awaiting update on w3c/imsc#503 before proceeding with privacy and security reviews.

[nigelmegitt]

Performance is listed in the Charter but I cannot action it because https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html#horizontal-review doesn't guide me to any performance review group. @plehegar please help.

[plehegar]

I don't think that performance review is relevant for this deliverable. TTML doesn't link to outside resources, so it doesn't enter in the performance timeline. So I suggest you skip.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed IMSC 1.2 HR, and agreed to the following:

• SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to send messages to Security and TAG and the other HR recipients advising of the plan to publish in 4 weeks, and to issue CfC for publication.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<nigel> Topic: IMSC 1.2 HR
<nigel> Nigel: Let's look at the issue:
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/76
<nigel> Nigel: I checked the "Privacy" box because I believe Jeffrey Yaskin's response covered IMSC 1.2 as well as TTML2
<nigel> .. I filed an issue for TAG earlier in the week.
<nigel> .. It was slightly unsatisfying because the issue template asked for good things that I don't think we have.
<nigel> .. In particular I chose the best thing I could find for the explainer, but I don't know if we have anything better.
<nigel> Pierre: I think that thread has all the information.
<nigel> .. There's another thread I think, the actual issue on imsc-vnext-reqs.
<nigel> Nigel: I looked at that and decided it was not as useful.
<nigel> Pierre: Alright, thanks.
<nigel> Nigel: Then I think we have not updated the security and privacy self review for IMSC 1.2.
<nigel> Pierre: I remember spending a lot of time on this, maybe for IMSC 1.1
<nigel> Nigel: The thing here is that the changes we have made do potentially impact security.
<nigel> Pierre: Look at w3c/imsc#503
<nigel> Nigel: Ah, great, thank you!
<nigel> Pierre: We did a lot of work, we just don't remember.
<nigel> Nigel: Right!
<nigel> .. I've added that in to the TAG request
<nigel> .. I also did request an expedited review since the delta is small.
<plh> https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview#Horizontal_Groups
<nigel> .. The last box in this HR review is for security. We have not sent this I think.
<nigel> Philippe: You have to send it to public-web-security.
<nigel> Pierre: Let's make sure we have not done this already.
<nigel> Nigel: If I'd done it I should have added it to this issue.
<plh> https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=public-web-security&index-type=t&keywords=imsc&search=Search
<nigel> Philippe: [searches the archive] I don't have anything for IMSC since 1.1.
<nigel> Nigel: OK I need to send something.
<nigel> Philippe: You copy/paste what you have to that list.
<nigel> Cyril: Given that IMSC is a profile of TTML and TTML went through that step do we need to do anything?
<nigel> Philippe: That's a good point.
<nigel> .. It doesn't hurt to send an email. Do you need to hold on it to get an answer?
<nigel> .. My suggestion would be no.
<nigel> Gary: Also back in October Nigel sent a security review request for TTML2 2nd Ed.
<nigel> Philippe: A simple email saying we plan to move this forward and given it is a profile we don't believe it
<nigel> .. needs a security review, so this is for information.
<nigel> Nigel: Okay I can certainly do that.
<plh> https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/i18n-activity
<nigel> .. This is good, the number of upstream dependencies has reduced.
<nigel> Philippe: I see TTML2 related issues on i18n.
<nigel> Nigel: All those are in hand, and labelled to be dealt with in a future edition of TTML2.
<nigel> Philippe: Then I agree likely we won't get new issues for IMSC 1.2.
<nigel> Pierre: We could pick a target date for IMSC 1.2 CR today and work towards that.
<nigel> .. Given we don't know of outstanding issues and we think the risk is low maybe we should just do that.
<nigel> .. Then we can let HR groups know.
<nigel> .. What about 3 weeks?
<nigel> Nigel: Our Charter says to allow 3 months for HR.
<plh> "The Working Group is advised to seek a review at least 3 months before first entering CR and is encouraged to proactively notify the horizontal review groups when major changes occur in a specification following a review."
<nigel> Pierre: I don't think 3 months is warranted for this size of change.
<nigel> .. I propose saying 3 weeks and let TAG know.
<nigel> .. Be apologetic, ask them to let us know if they want us to hold off.
<nigel> Philippe: I would give 4 weeks because 28 days is mentioned in the Process quite often.
<nigel> Pierre: OK that's fine with me, let's do that.
<nigel> Philippe: NB the Charter provides "advice" not a requirement.
<nigel> Pierre: I guess in this case it is just to avoid going to CR and then the TAG coming back with a major issue that
<nigel> .. requires a 2nd CR. It makes sense to give them a couple of weeks for a quick review to see if they have a bad reaction.
<nigel> Nigel: OK sure I will add a message to Tess on the ticket.
<nigel> Philippe: You should give them the option to ask for more time.
<nigel> Nigel: Yes.
<nigel> Nigel: OK if we are to publish CR in 4 weeks then we will need a resolution to publish, and time to prep for the
<nigel> .. publication.
<nigel> .. Are there any open issues we plan to resolve in IMSC 1.2?
<nigel> .. [looks] Seems like no.
<nigel> .. We need to make sure the IMSC 1.1 errata are factored in.
<nigel> Pierre: We were pretty methodical in doing that I believe.
<nigel> Nigel: OK given the number of people on the call I think it is fairer to issue a CfC for publication.
<nigel> Pierre: I think so yes.
<nigel> Nigel: But just as a checkpoint, does anyone on this call have any objections to publishing in 4 weeks?
<nigel> group: [no objections]
<nigel> Pierre: Nigel, let me know if you need any input on the email to the TAG, I will be happy to help.
<nigel> Nigel: OK, thank you for the offer.
<nigel> .. I think that's it for this topic.
<nigel> SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to send messages to Security and TAG and the other HR recipients advising of the plan to publish in 4 weeks, and to issue CfC for publication.

[nigelmegitt]

Message sent to TAG: w3ctag/design-reviews#474 (comment)

[nigelmegitt]

Message sent to Web Sec: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-security/2020Feb/0002.html

[nigelmegitt]

Message received from PING via Nick Doty https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2020Mar/0013.html

[plehegar]

May I suggest raise separate issues for the PING comments and add a label "privacy-tracker" on each of them?

[nigelmegitt]

Yes you may. I have asked PING to raise them so the provenance is clear but if they come back to me saying they'd rather not then I guess I will have to do it.

[nigelmegitt]

Closing since we published IMSC 1.2 Rec