17:00:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:00:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-irc
17:01:23 <EdRice> Chair: Vincent
17:01:32 <EdRice> Scribe: EdRice
17:01:41 <EdRice> Regrets: Tim, Noah
17:02:00 <ht> zakim, please call ht-781
17:02:00 <Zakim> ok, ht; the call is being made
17:02:03 <Zakim> +Ht
17:02:56 <Norm> ht, wrt xmlFunctions-34 do you concur that the ball wrt our draft is in your court?
17:03:06 <ht> Yes, sigh.
17:03:10 <ht> Mea culpa
17:03:59 <Vincent> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:03:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ed_Rice, Vincent, Norm, DanC, Ht
17:08:02 <Zakim> + +1.604.534.aaaa
17:08:09 <EdRice> TOPIC: Administrative
17:08:26 <EdRice> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:08:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ed_Rice, Vincent, Norm, DanC, Ht, +1.604.534.aaaa
17:08:39 <DanC> I'm OK to scribe 25 Apr
17:08:45 <EdRice> Zakim +1.604.534.aaa is Dave
17:08:57 <EdRice> Dan will scribe next week
17:09:00 <DanC> Zakim, aaaa is Dave
17:09:00 <Zakim> +Dave; got it
17:09:05 <EdRice> no regrets for next week.
17:09:31 <EdRice> Resolution: Minutes approved as-is from last week
17:10:05 <EdRice> TOPIC: f2f meeting in october
17:10:19 <EdRice> meeting in Vancouver, starting on the 4th.
17:11:00 <EdRice> Tim and Noah were concerned about 2-3 day meeting length, but neither are on the call.
17:11:09 <DanC> (I still prefer 2 days)
17:11:33 <EdRice> ht: I can book late flights home.
17:11:55 <EdRice> Norm:  I have to leave early, so Friday needs to end early on Friday or I'll have to leave early.
17:12:18 <DanC> (if we go 4-5 Oct, for 2 days, both weekends are safe.)
17:12:45 <EdRice> Ed: how about a two day meeting, we just work late if need be.
17:12:56 <Norm> Working late would be fine by me
17:13:02 <EdRice> Vincent: Lets confirm next week with the people who are not here today.
17:13:33 <EdRice> TOPIC: Update on AC meeting[10] perparation
17:13:54 <Norm> q+ to comment on the June f2f
17:14:00 <EdRice> Vincent: Last week we decided to use our slot for a pannel discussions.  
17:14:31 <EdRice> Vincent: Steve was interested in my communication, but Steve declined getting the meeting running and be a moderator.
17:14:53 <EdRice> Vincent:  So, we're on the agenda with the topics, but we need to find someone else to moderate the session.
17:15:36 <EdRice> Vincent: Any suggestions?
17:15:52 <EdRice> Norm: Stuart Williams?
17:17:00 <EdRice> general round of agreement, Vicent will contact to see if he'll be in town.
17:17:22 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #tagmem
17:18:47 <EdRice> ht: we could invite Ralph on the pannel as well.
17:19:10 <EdRice> Dave:  I havent seen an opinion from Ralph however, he may be a better moderator.
17:19:57 <EdRice> Vincent: ok, I have a few names.  I'll contact Mishai, Stewart and Ralph.  Otherwise we may need more names so if you think of any please share via email.
17:20:12 <dorchard> Ed, that wasn't I that mentioned Ralph.  I think it was Dan.
17:20:37 <EdRice> TOPIC: F2F meeting in June.
17:20:42 <Norm> -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-logistics.html
17:20:42 <DanC> s/Dave:  I/DanC:  I/
17:20:51 <Vincent> ack norm
17:20:51 <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to comment on the June f2f
17:20:58 <EdRice> Noah: I updated the logistics page to include possible hotels.
17:21:53 <EdRice> TV and Tim are invited by Lord Jeffery Inn. 
17:22:07 <EdRice> Noah:  June 12th I'll provide a dinner if you can attend.
17:22:37 <EdRice> Noah: I'd suggest making your reservations sooner than later.
17:23:28 <Norm> Tell Norm your flight schedules if your flying into BDL
17:23:51 <EdRice> TOPIC: XmlFunctions-34
17:24:05 <EdRice> Vincent: I put this on for TV but he's not on the phone.
17:24:25 <EdRice> V: there are three pending actions, only one can be addressed since TV and Tim are not in.
17:24:47 <EdRice> Vincent: ht can you update us on the draft finding?
17:24:51 <Norm> Norm wrote -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jan/0011.html
17:25:03 <EdRice> ht: This is stuck in my in-tray and I've been busy, it will likely be several week.
17:25:41 <EdRice> Vincent: so our actions list remains the same for now.
17:25:55 <EdRice> TOPIC:  Security/Authentication
17:26:29 <EdRice> Vincent:  To continue our discussion from last week.
17:26:39 <EdRice> Vincent: we talked about reviewing DIX.
17:27:29 <EdRice> Dan:  the context came from Lisa and she 'may be' an area director, but I havent heard yet.
17:27:55 <EdRice> Dan:  The area director solicits people to do the review, but when you do that review you should get back to the authors of the working groups directly
17:28:01 <EdRice> Dan: not with Lisa.
17:28:45 <EdRice> Dan: The authentication service - I doubt there would be much benefit for us to look into.  Not really web architecture stuff per say.
17:28:52 <EdRice> Dan: I'm more interested in DIX.
17:29:43 <EdRice> Ed: DIX is very active. 
17:29:53 <EdRice> Dan: There are many documents, there is an update just today.
17:29:57 <DanC> -> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dix/current/msg00596.html new DIX draft today
17:31:00 <EdRice> Dan:  should we create a TAG issue?
17:31:16 <EdRice> Dan: Passwords in the clear should be a TAG issue.
17:31:36 <EdRice> Dan: The DIX issue could be looked at in many ways.
17:32:25 <EdRice> Vincent:  We can make the passwords in the clear an issue at any time.  Should we spend more time on the documents in front of us.
17:33:00 <EdRice> Ed: I'll look at DIX.
17:33:57 <EdRice> Vincent: ok, we have one reviewer for DIX.  When you have a better view of the status, please present your point of view during a teleconferance.
17:34:14 <EdRice> Vincent: should we make passwords in the clear a new TAG issue?
17:35:08 <EdRice> Vincent: We need people who are committed to making progress on this.
17:35:42 <EdRice> Dan: I dont think a short finding would be worth our time, we need to talk about alternatives etc.
17:36:14 <EdRice> Ed: I can start working on it..
17:36:22 <DanC> (I think it should be a TAG issue; I don't know that I can work on it soon. I think it's fine to have TAG issues sit around, acknowledged but not making lots of progress, for 18 months.)
17:36:45 <EdRice> Vincnet: are there other opionions on creating a TAG issue on passwords in the clear?
17:37:00 <EdRice> Vincent: I hear a few people in doing so.. any objections?
17:37:47 <EdRice> Vincent: does anyone obstain?  No one, so we have a concensus to open this as a new issue.
17:38:16 <EdRice> RESOLUTION: We will open a new issue 52
17:38:21 <DanC> clearTextPasswords-52
17:38:28 <EdRice> Proposals for the name?
17:38:29 <DanC> passwordsInTheClear-52
17:38:40 <EdRice> +1 on passwordsInTheClear
17:38:41 <Norm> passwordsInClear-52?
17:39:27 <EdRice> Resolution: passwordsInTheClear-52 will be the issue name.
17:39:41 <EdRice> Vincnet: Ed will begin drafting.
17:40:00 <EdRice> Ed: I'll communicate this first to www-tag then start drafting..
17:40:08 <Norm> s/Vincnet/Vincent/
17:40:15 <EdRice> ACTION: Ed to communicate new issue and produce first draft finding.
17:40:50 <DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-usable-authentication/2006Apr/thread.html
17:41:07 <EdRice> Dan: it might be worth noting, there was a workshop a while ago with a follow-up mailing list.
17:41:33 <EdRice> Dan: need to explore mailing list in relation to TAG
17:42:07 <EdRice> Dan: we did some work in the f2f in september which may be worth linking to.
17:42:20 <EdRice> Vincent: I'll open the issue on the list.
17:42:32 <EdRice> ACTION: Vincent to open the issue on the issues list.
17:42:58 <EdRice> TOPIC: issue putMediaType-38[13]
17:43:31 <EdRice> Vincent:  Should we close this issue now that we've published the finding?  There is no open action on this issue.
17:44:00 <EdRice> Dan: are the specifics of PUT in the new finding?
17:44:11 <EdRice> Dan: yep.. found it.
17:45:07 <DanC> yes, putMediaType-38 is addressed to my satisfaction
17:45:12 <EdRice> Dan: The procedure is to announce that we have resolved the issue and solicit any feedback?
17:45:17 <EdRice> +1
17:45:28 <Norm> +1
17:45:39 <EdRice> HT: ok
17:45:51 <EdRice> Vincent: I agree as well.
17:46:07 <EdRice> RESOLUTION: We have resolved to close putMediaType-38
17:46:29 <EdRice> TOPIC:  namespaceState-48
17:46:56 <EdRice> Vincent: We have published a finding in Jan.  The only action still on the list is an action for Tim regarding the policy for creating new namespaces.
17:47:07 <EdRice> Vincent: Tim is not here, but I see a new policy is being created.
17:47:34 <EdRice> Vincent:  Should we wait for this new document to be published before closing this issue.
17:47:55 <EdRice> Dan:  I dont remember what we wanted in the new version or not.. 
17:48:08 <EdRice> Vincent: We wanted the W3C policy to be in alignment with our finding.
17:48:37 <EdRice> Dan: I'm moderatly inclined to keep Tim's action open
17:49:00 <EdRice> Dan: I know there has been some communication on this.
17:49:28 <EdRice> Vincent: ok, so I agree we need Tim on the call before we can close this issue.
17:49:55 <EdRice> Dan: It would also be nice if we could remember why we asked Tim to make a new version.
17:50:13 <EdRice> Vincent: I'll look at the logs/minutes so we can have a more effective discussion next week.
17:51:06 <EdRice> TOPIC: xmlChunk-44[18]
17:51:44 <EdRice> Vincent: This is something that I dont know about at all.  I understand the topic and I see that there is a draft, dated Sept 2004 by Norm.  There is not much discussion regarding this.
17:51:56 <EdRice> Norm: in summary;
17:52:26 <EdRice> Norm: The question was: Shouldnt there be a standard way to compare 'chunks' of xml.
17:52:47 <EdRice> Norm: the answer was there is not single right answer to this question...
17:53:11 <EdRice> Norm: Timbl pushed back on that finding and asked if we could document 'a' right answer.
17:53:29 <EdRice> Norm: There were some comments, but I never did incorporate those comments.
17:53:35 <DanC> q+
17:54:02 <EdRice> Norm: We just turned our attention to other things.  I'm not sure what we should do next, I could incorporate those comments into the draft
17:54:14 <Vincent> ack danc
17:54:28 <EdRice> Norm: But we need to make sure that people understand we're producing 'a' way, and not an approved way.
17:56:36 <EdRice> Dan: Does this draft corespond to xQuery?
17:56:55 <EdRice> Norm: I suspect its reasonable close for two chunks of unvalidated content.
17:57:17 <EdRice> Dan: A really nice appendix or two would be an implementation in xQuery or something.
17:57:36 <EdRice> Norm: If the TAG asks me to revise this, I'd consider doing that.
17:57:52 <EdRice> HT: I'm not sure, this may the top of a slippery slope
17:58:41 <EdRice> ht: we have the infosec spec and we have the xpath/xquery data model which either is or isnt counter to the infoset
17:59:13 <EdRice> ht: until we're prepared to tackle all of that I'm not sure that re-issue that finding with the narrow focus would be good.
17:59:25 <EdRice> ht: I havent reviewed the finding however.
18:00:32 <EdRice> Norm: no, I'm saying your application may have others that you may want to consider.  There is no one right answer, even if there was one universal data model.
18:00:46 <EdRice> ht: well, I guess I need to read the finding.
18:00:59 <Norm> Sorry ht, I wasn't trying to send you off to the finding :-)
18:01:06 <DanC> q+ to suggest 2 options that are OK by me: (a) leave it in the someday pile (b) ask I18N if it's an improvement worth spending effort on
18:02:39 <EdRice> Vincent: The issue was raised by Tim so we should probably follow-up with Tim.
18:02:51 <DanC> ack danc
18:02:51 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest 2 options that are OK by me: (a) leave it in the someday pile (b) ask I18N if it's an improvement worth spending effort on
18:02:53 <Vincent> ack danc
18:03:52 <EdRice> Vincent: ok, I didnt feel it was urgent, it just hasnt been discussed so I put it on the agenda to get an update.  Its clear there are not clear next steps right now.
18:04:22 <EdRice> Vincent: ok, lets leave it for now.
18:05:05 <EdRice> Norm: I'm happy to either update it or leave it on the to-do-list as a lower priority.
18:05:55 <EdRice> TOPIC: urn-50
18:06:49 <EdRice> ht: This is proceeding as a matter of priority.  The write token is with me, I'm going to spend some time on it shortly and get it back to the group.
18:07:12 <EdRice> Vincent: we talked about this two weeks ago, but no clear action was recorded on this.
18:07:32 <ht> ht has left #tagmem
18:09:15 <EdRice> Vincent: I'll add an action to HT on this to the issues list.
18:09:38 <EdRice> Vincent: anything else?
18:09:48 <EdRice> Vincnet: Meeting is adjourned..
18:09:51 <Zakim> -DanC
18:09:52 <Zakim> -Ht
18:09:53 <Zakim> -Norm
18:09:54 <Zakim> -Ed_Rice
18:09:56 <Zakim> -Vincent
18:10:01 <EdRice> RRSAgent, make logs public
18:10:12 <Zakim> -Dave
18:10:13 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
18:10:14 <Zakim> Attendees were Ed_Rice, Vincent, Norm, DanC, Ht, +1.604.534.aaaa, Dave
18:10:15 <EdRice> RRSAgent, gnerate minutes
18:10:15 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'gnerate minutes', EdRice.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:10:30 <EdRice> RRSAgent, generate minutes
18:10:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-minutes.html EdRice
18:10:45 <EdRice> Zakim, bye
18:10:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tagmem
18:10:50 <EdRice> RRSAgent, bye
18:10:50 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-actions.rdf :
18:10:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ed to communicate new issue and produce first draft finding. [1]
18:10:50 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-irc#T17-40-15
18:10:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Vincent to open the issue on the issues list. [2]
18:10:50 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-irc#T17-42-32