See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 17 November 2009
<Bob> scribenick: Vikas
Dug: Request to defer 6463.
<scribe> AGENDA: Accepted within the working group
RESOLUTION: The minutes from 2009-11-05/06 meeting has been approved without objection.
Bob: Meeting of 11/24 and 12/22 is
canceled without objection
... Meeting of 12/29 is also canceled without objection.
Bob: Clarify, if an issue shows up after 11/13, will look at it after LC.
<dug> what about just pointing to: http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurity/SecurityChallenges-1.0-errata-2006-08-14.html
Bob: Any objection to make it LC issue?
<DaveS> Dave S Joins the phone call.
Dug/Gil: agrees to make it LC issue.
Bob: 8273 is placed in LC issue.
<dug> s/MUST understand/MUST support/
RESOLUTION: 8280 resolved as proposed
Bob: Any objection to make 8284 as possibly substantive issue. (yes, not opened for now, need time to consider)
Bob: Any objection to accept 8181 as new issue
Asir: Asking for more details before accepting it
<asir> Yeah, but what if members don't understand the issue
Tom: The confusion highlighted in the issue need to be clarified...and looks a valid issue.
Bob: 8181 accepted and is placed in current issue category
<asir> Recommend that issue openers provide justification rather than creating placeholders
Bob: 8182 accepted and is placed in current issue category
Bob: 8185 accepted as LC issue without objection
Bob: 8192 accepted as current issue without objection
Bob: 8191 is accepted without objection.
Bob: 8193 accepted as LC issue without objection
Bob: 8194 accepted as current issue
<Yves> scribenick Vikas1
<Bob> scribenick: Vikas1
Asir: Asking for more substantive description on the issue.
<asir2> XML Schema, XQuery and XSLT uses XPath
<asir2> they have not bumped into these issues
Bob: 8195 accepted as current issue
Bob: 8231 closed as duplicate of 8194
Bob: 8257 accepted as LC issue
Bob: 8258 accepted as LC issue
Dug: Editorial which requires some discussion, suggest it as a current issue.
Bob: 8164 accepted as current issue
Bob: 8165 accepted as LC issue
Dug: suggest pre-LC
Bob: 8176 not opened (need time to consider)
Gil: Suggest it as a current issue, which requires some discusison.
Wu: Suggest it as LC
<asir2> should we document that this issue is limited to fixing RFC terms?
<dug> we can't make this determination until we see the proposal
<dug> I wasn't done
<asir2> What I am hearing is that the issue description is incomplete and is a place holder for future issues
<asir2> 2119 scan sounds good
<asir2> Did Bob invent the phrase '2119 scan'?
Bob: 8271 accepted as current issue
<scribe> scribenick: Vikas1
RESOLUTION: Issue-8274 Closed with no action
Bob: 8275 accepted as current issue
RESOLUTION: 8276 resolved with current proposal
RESOLUTION: 8277 resolved with current proposal
Bob: 8281 accepted as current issue
Bob: 8283 accepted as current issue
Bob: 8286 accepted as current issue
Bob: accepted as LC issue
Bob: 8288 accepted as current issue