IRC log of waf on 2008-01-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:01:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #waf
20:01:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:01:28 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
20:01:30 [Zakim]
20:02:04 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
20:02:04 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
20:02:06 [Zakim]
20:02:08 [Zakim]
20:02:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.993.aaaa
20:02:18 [ArtB]
zakim, aaaa is ArtB
20:02:18 [Zakim]
+ArtB; got it
20:02:25 [anne]
Zakim, Anne is me
20:02:25 [Zakim]
+anne; got it
20:02:27 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #waf
20:02:37 [anne]
Zakim, who is here?
20:02:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [Mozilla], anne, ArtB, Thomas
20:02:38 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dorchard, RRSAgent, Zakim, ArtB, tlr, Lachy, Mike^mail, heycam, shepazu, anne, Hixie, trackbot-ng, mikko
20:02:42 [sicking]
sicking has joined #waf
20:02:43 [Zakim]
20:02:49 [shepazu]
Zakim, call Doug-work
20:02:49 [Zakim]
ok, shepazu; the call is being made
20:02:51 [Zakim]
20:03:08 [sicking]
Zakim, who is on call
20:03:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on call', sicking
20:03:28 [ArtB]
20:03:38 [sicking]
Zakim, callers
20:03:38 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'callers', sicking
20:03:50 [ArtB]
Meeting: WAF WG Voice Conf on Access Control Spec
20:03:52 [Zakim]
20:03:55 [ArtB]
Date: 16 January 2008
20:04:00 [Mike^mail]
Zakim, ??P1 is me
20:04:00 [Zakim]
+Mike^mail; got it
20:04:13 [sicking]
Zakim, mozilla is me
20:04:13 [Zakim]
+sicking; got it
20:04:36 [ArtB]
Present: Art, Anne, Thomas, Jonas, Doug, Mike, David
20:04:45 [ArtB]
Regrets: Arve, Caludio
20:04:51 [anne]
Zakim, noise?
20:04:51 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, anne.
20:05:08 [anne]
Zakim, who is making noise?
20:05:18 [Zakim]
anne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ArtB (79%), Thomas (5%)
20:05:26 [tlr]
zakim, I am thomas
20:05:26 [Zakim]
ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
20:05:27 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
20:05:27 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
20:05:40 [Zakim]
20:05:55 [tlr]
zakim, unmute me
20:05:55 [Zakim]
Thomas should no longer be muted
20:06:01 [anne]
Zakim, who is making noise?
20:06:05 [Zakim]
20:06:11 [Zakim]
anne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Thomas (25%)
20:06:16 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
20:06:18 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
20:06:30 [anne]
Zakim, who is making noise?
20:06:32 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
20:06:37 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
20:06:40 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
20:06:41 [Zakim]
anne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ArtB (19%)
20:07:02 [anne]
Zakim, mute me
20:07:02 [Zakim]
anne should now be muted
20:07:05 [ArtB]
Topic: Confidentiality of Minutes
20:07:36 [ArtB]
AB: propose minutes be made availible to the public immediately
20:07:39 [ArtB]
JS: OK with me
20:07:51 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
20:07:54 [tlr]
+1 to public right away
20:07:57 [ArtB]
[none heard]
20:08:33 [dorchard]
q+ to ask for an agenda item
20:08:38 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: minutes will be public immediately
20:09:03 [tlr]
zakim, unmute me
20:09:03 [Zakim]
Thomas should no longer be muted
20:09:06 [ArtB]
AB: what about approval procedure
20:09:09 [dorchard]
I like having minutes being made public immediately and giving a week for somebody to object before final approval
20:09:14 [ArtB]
DS: could be approved immediately
20:09:28 [ArtB]
TR: could do the approval at the beginning of the next meeting
20:09:54 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
20:09:54 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
20:10:21 [ArtB]
AB: propose a 1-week approval period and if no objections the minutes will be approved
20:10:28 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
20:10:30 [ArtB]
20:11:03 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: after the minutes are sent to the public mail list participants will have 1-week to raise objections; otherwise mins will be considered approved
20:11:19 [ArtB]
Topic: Requirements and Use Cases
20:13:07 [anne]
Zakim, unmute me
20:13:07 [Zakim]
anne should no longer be muted
20:13:42 [dorchard]
Agenda item added at 10 minutes prior to end of call: Intro to Access Control rewrite proposal
20:14:08 [ArtB]
AB: any comments on the plan for requirements and UCs?
20:14:21 [ArtB]
AvK: what is the idea regarding the doc e.g. WG Note?
20:14:39 [ArtB]
JS: I think a Note is a good idea
20:14:50 [ArtB]
... we need to set a deadline for completing the reqs
20:15:02 [ArtB]
DO: seems right to me [Note]
20:15:33 [ArtB]
... support doing this as a note
20:15:53 [ArtB]
... some WGs have gone down the REC path but its significant overhead
20:16:55 [ArtB]
DS: we could use a wiki as an intermediate step
20:17:10 [ArtB]
AB: propose we create a WG Note
20:17:14 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
20:17:18 [ArtB]
20:17:36 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: we shall create a WG Note for the UCs, Reqs, etc.
20:17:44 [anne]
Zakim, who is making noise?
20:17:54 [Zakim]
anne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ArtB (84%)
20:18:15 [ArtB]
AB: what about a wiki?
20:18:27 [ArtB]
JS: is one readily available for us to use?
20:18:42 [ArtB]
... and what does DO prefer?
20:19:02 [ArtB]
DO: I'm indifferent; can use a wiki or the file I've started
20:19:05 [MikeSmith]
[MikeSmith needs to drop off for another call. may be back..]
20:19:14 [Zakim]
20:19:23 [ArtB]
... small set of Editors does help with continuity
20:19:39 [ArtB]
... can be hard with wikis
20:19:58 [tlr]
zakim, who is muted?
20:19:58 [Zakim]
I see Thomas muted
20:19:58 [ArtB]
... but does help when lots of people are contributing
20:20:55 [ArtB]
AB: who plans to contribute?
20:21:24 [ArtB]
JS: I still plan to submit my input; can do it as an email or add to the wiki
20:21:37 [ArtB]
DO: make an executive decision Art
20:21:47 [ArtB]
AB: my preference is a wiki
20:21:55 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to doing so?
20:21:58 [ArtB]
20:22:05 [anne]
i disagree
20:22:10 [anne]
for some reason i can't talk
20:22:30 [anne]
my suggestion would be to add it in an appendix to the main specification
20:22:34 [ArtB]
DO: until we get a wiki set up can we continue as we started?
20:22:42 [Zakim]
20:23:00 [anne]
Zakim, passcode?
20:23:00 [Zakim]
the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), anne
20:23:27 [Zakim]
20:23:36 [tlr]
zakim, unmute me
20:23:36 [Zakim]
Thomas should no longer be muted
20:23:51 [ArtB]
AB: can our member-only wiki be made Public, at least for this part?
20:24:25 [ArtB]
TR: should be relatively easy to set up but it is painful to add list of writers
20:25:14 [sicking]
Zakim, mute anne
20:25:14 [Zakim]
anne should now be muted
20:25:17 [ArtB]
TR: let's take this offline
20:25:20 [ArtB]
DS: agree
20:25:28 [ArtB]
AB: good point; I agree
20:25:31 [tlr]
DO: have serious concerns if wiki can't be public
20:25:38 [sicking]
sorry anne, you were causing echo
20:25:41 [ArtB]
AB: let's drop this process-related discussion
20:25:43 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
20:25:43 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
20:25:49 [Zakim]
20:25:57 [anne]
sicking, yeah, this isn't working
20:26:07 [anne]
apparently my objections on IRC are also ignored
20:27:01 [tlr]
zakim, who is on the phone?
20:27:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see sicking, Thomas (muted), DOrchard, Doug, ArtB
20:27:27 [tlr]
anne, please point out what objections you are referring to.
20:27:33 [ArtB]
AB: Anne, we did not make a decision on the wiki
20:27:52 [anne]
RRSAgent, pointer?
20:27:52 [RRSAgent]
20:28:01 [anne]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:28:05 [ArtB]
Topic: Requirements in David's document
20:28:32 [ArtB]
AB: regarding 3.2, Hixie and Jonas both proposed we delete this requirement
20:28:35 [anne]
20:28:41 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to deleting 3.2?
20:29:02 [ArtB]
20:31:17 [ArtB]
AB: how do we handle the existing reqs and new reqs?
20:31:23 [Zakim]
20:31:24 [anne]
Zakim, mute me
20:31:25 [Zakim]
anne should now be muted
20:31:36 [ArtB]
DO: people should make proposals for edits and new requirements
20:32:05 [ArtB]
... I am reluctant to add things without some general support
20:32:15 [ArtB]
... If a few people agree then we can add them
20:32:25 [ArtB]
JS: agree we need it to be lightweight process
20:34:08 [ArtB]
AB: I think the priority is to document the requirements for the existing model
20:34:27 [ArtB]
JS: not clear what are the VB requirements
20:35:51 [ArtB]
AB: I have an action to chase that down
20:36:22 [ArtB]
JS: I ask because it could mean we could drop the XML PI if we no longer had their requirement for such support
20:37:56 [ArtB]
AB: not sure how to make sure people submit comments
20:38:09 [ArtB]
JS: could set a deadline
20:38:36 [ArtB]
DS: what about the plans for FF implementation of the AC spec
20:38:56 [dorchard]
DO: We could set a deadline of a few weeks if there are few comments over the next week or so.
20:39:03 [Hixie]
<?access-control?> is really important to me for XBL2, fwiw
20:39:30 [Hixie]
and i think it's critical that we allow people to make data available cross-site without playing with server configuration
20:39:55 [Hixie]
i assure you that not all servers give you low-level access, e.g. many google services would never let you add an http header
20:40:03 [ArtB]
JS: some people are arguing we need to make a decision now; if the spec then has major changes we will have to withdraw the impl
20:40:29 [ArtB]
DS: it's relevant to understand Mozilla's timeframe
20:41:03 [ArtB]
DS: DO, do you think we need major re-design?
20:41:22 [ArtB]
DO: I think there are some still important open issues
20:41:41 [ArtB]
... e.g. is the PI support needed, etc.
20:41:53 [ArtB]
... think we need to nail down the requirements
20:42:56 [ArtB]
DS: some people believe the spec is solid and that time is critical
20:43:10 [ArtB]
... and that we need to move forward quickly
20:44:05 [ArtB]
... My concerns: 1) it's gravely flawed and will be released anyway; 2) it doesn't cause any probs but was held back because of debate
20:44:37 [ArtB]
... Need to get it into the hands of developers
20:44:55 [dorchard]
q+ to wonder about implementation priority
20:45:13 [tlr]
zakim, who is muted?
20:45:13 [Zakim]
I see Thomas, anne muted
20:46:20 [ArtB]
DO: I think we need to be careful about a vendor putting constraints on the work just becuase they have done an implementation
20:46:36 [tlr]
anne, does Opera have any specific plans?
20:47:02 [ArtB]
... think we still need to prioritize the reqs and UCs
20:47:06 [Zakim]
20:47:26 [shepazu]
20:47:31 [tlr]
that was just a side question on irc
20:47:46 [anne]
tlr, we don't talk about future products
20:48:06 [Hixie]
the only way we can make sure that implementations don't constrain the spec is to not delay the spec
20:48:21 [Hixie]
the more we delay, the more likely it is that implementations will constrain it
20:48:36 [ArtB]
DS: think a key diff here is that this functionality has been needed for at least a couple of years
20:48:55 [ArtB]
... I don't think it's good [for the Web] to delay the spec
20:49:36 [Zakim]
20:49:37 [ArtB]
... Everyday developers have been asking for this functionality
20:49:53 [tlr]
zakim, mute anne
20:49:53 [Zakim]
anne should now be muted
20:50:01 [tlr]
anne, you are unmuted if art acks you
20:50:04 [ArtB]
DO: I agree with DS' last point; I don't think we want a bunch of different hacks addressing this same issue
20:50:06 [tlr]
and you can unmute yourself with "ack anne"
20:50:16 [anne]
20:50:35 [ArtB]
JS: I did think the spec was stable that's why I started my implemenation
20:52:19 [shepazu]
20:52:42 [tlr]
20:52:59 [tlr]
art: we early on tried to keep the use cases constrained; now getting bashed for not extending them
20:53:25 [ArtB]
JS: in the current context, 1-2 months is a really long time
20:53:50 [ArtB]
... in another mont or so it will be too late for me to make changes or even to retract
20:54:06 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #waf
20:55:04 [ArtB]
DS: so if we are in LC by the end of Feb would that work with Mozilla's timeframe would we be OK?
20:55:11 [ArtB]
JS: mid-Feb would be much better
20:55:19 [dorchard]
This seems very risky to me from an impl perspective.
20:55:25 [ArtB]
... but I think we just need to adjust some details
20:55:56 [ArtB]
JS: I realize this is an unstable spec and the WG is free to make any changes it needs
20:57:27 [ArtB]
AB: I'm OK with establishing a deadline for the requirements work
20:57:43 [tlr]
+1 to deadline on requirements work
20:57:43 [ArtB]
... like one week to review the existing set of reqs Dave captured
20:57:56 [Hixie]
isn't it about a year after the deadline for the requirements work?
20:58:20 [Hixie]
i mean, sure, it's sad that the requirements weren't captured formally, but shouldn't it be too late to change them now?
20:59:11 [anne]
ack me
20:59:31 [ArtB]
AB: what about giving two weeks for reqs work
21:00:01 [ArtB]
JS: I think we need to document the implicit requirements
21:00:13 [tlr]
sorry, syntax is *not* minor changes
21:00:28 [ArtB]
AvK: the spec really hasn't changed in over one year
21:00:34 [tlr]
21:00:59 [tlr]
zakim, unmute me
21:00:59 [Zakim]
Thomas should no longer be muted
21:01:03 [tlr]
21:01:28 [ArtB]
AvK: by this I mean the spec as Hixie had written it; the AC has been updated to reflect Hixie's version
21:01:45 [ArtB]
TR: there have been changes to the syntax and semantics
21:02:12 [anne]
Zakim, mute me
21:02:12 [Zakim]
anne should now be muted
21:02:16 [ArtB]
... think it would be more effective to get agreement on the reqs
21:02:37 [Hixie]
what happens if we don't get agreement on the reqs?
21:02:45 [ArtB]
... that is documenting the implicit requirements
21:02:56 [dorchard]
DO: The document of Feb 15th 2007 does not have the authorization request, support for different methods.
21:02:56 [ArtB]
JS: I agree with TR
21:03:05 [ArtB]
DO: I also agree with TR
21:03:09 [dorchard]
DO: so I think that the document has changed a lot int he past year.
21:03:13 [anne]
shepazu, I wasn't replying to you
21:04:10 [ArtB]
AB: so what can we do in the next two weeks?
21:04:19 [ArtB]
DO: we can try to get closure in 2 weeks
21:04:30 [ArtB]
JS: we should aim to be done in two weeks
21:04:53 [ArtB]
AB: get a sense of who is willing to really help document the implicit requirements?
21:04:54 [tlr]
art: want to get a sense who is willing to help document implicit reqs
21:04:58 [ArtB]
AB: Anne?
21:05:10 [tlr]
zakim, unmute anne
21:05:10 [Zakim]
anne should no longer be muted
21:05:19 [tlr]
anne: sure
21:05:21 [ArtB]
AvK: sure
21:05:32 [ArtB]
... have already started
21:05:38 [ArtB]
AB: Jonas?
21:05:40 [ArtB]
JS: yes
21:05:44 [ArtB]
AB: Thomas?
21:05:54 [ArtB]
TLR: yes
21:06:07 [tlr]
you can use it against us later :)
21:06:12 [tlr]
21:06:17 [ArtB]
DO: yes
21:06:22 [anne]
Zakim, mute me
21:06:22 [Zakim]
anne should now be muted
21:06:23 [sicking]
Zakim, mute anne
21:06:24 [Zakim]
anne was already muted, sicking
21:06:25 [ArtB]
... including Editorial work
21:06:40 [tlr]
21:07:18 [ArtB]
AB: Hixie - can you contribute to documenting the implicit requirements?
21:07:18 [dorchard]
DO: I just wanted to mention that reading consensus of the WG could be hard
21:07:19 [tlr]
tr: is hixie going to contribute xbl2 reqs?
21:07:23 [tlr]
js: I can probably cover that
21:07:57 [Hixie]
i think documenting requirements at this stage is an extremely bad idea
21:08:09 [Hixie]
since it can only lead to one thing, and that's people disagreeing with the requirements
21:08:14 [Hixie]
which can itself only lead to further delays
21:08:22 [Hixie]
this should have been in CR last year
21:08:30 [anne]
(and that already happened, see JonF on public-appformats)
21:08:45 [Hixie]
unless there are specific technical complaints, i think we should publish LC right now
21:09:02 [Hixie]
and that anything else is pandering to committee-driven design
21:09:02 [ArtB]
AB: everyone please contribute to the implicit requirements discussions ASAP and let's try to be "done" in two weeks.
21:09:50 [ArtB]
Topic: JSONRequest
21:10:21 [anne]
/dev/null ?
21:10:52 [ArtB]
AB: we talked about JSONRequest last week but with no resolution
21:11:01 [ArtB]
... for example is it in scope or not
21:11:31 [ArtB]
... Would like to know if there is consensus on JSONRequest.
21:11:51 [tlr]
21:12:18 [dorchard]
21:12:21 [ArtB]
... Should it be reflected in our first LC document?
21:12:57 [ArtB]
TR: it has a completely different security model than XHR
21:13:02 [dorchard]
Hixie, I don't think that a commitee doing design is a bad thing. That's why we have committees.
21:13:07 [ArtB]
... I don't think it is a fit for this spec
21:13:16 [ArtB]
... Recommend we keep it out.
21:13:22 [ArtB]
JS: I agree with TR.
21:14:04 [anne]
JSONRequest doesn't meet the implicit requirements. Why are we discussing this again?
21:14:05 [ArtB]
... I think it adds complexity and overhead.
21:14:19 [ArtB]
JS: I intend to submit a requirement that rules out JSONRequest
21:14:37 [ArtB]
DO: can there be negative requirements?
21:14:42 [anne]
JSONRequest doesn't do cookies/authentication, it doesn't do other formats than JSON, etc.
21:14:44 [ArtB]
DS: interesting
21:14:48 [Hixie]
dorchard: i fundamentally disagree with that position and would put HTML, CSS, XForms, XHTML, and a broad range of other specs as evidence supporting my opinion.
21:15:02 [ArtB]
DO: is absence of a requirement good enough or do we need negative requirements
21:15:42 [Zakim]
21:15:49 [tlr]
21:16:32 [ArtB]
JS: I think JSONRequest is out of scope
21:16:59 [ArtB]
DO: I am a bystander on this one
21:17:35 [tlr]
js: (a) do we want to adapt the JSONRequest security model; (b) do we want to use access-control for JSONRequest
21:17:45 [sicking]
JS: I think there are two separate questions when it comes to JSONRequest
21:18:06 [sicking]
JS: 1. Should access-control use the JSONRequest security model
21:18:30 [ArtB]
TR: wrt JSON, the client tells the server (by way of content type) that it is sending a request
21:18:38 [sicking]
JS: 2. Should we expact access-control such that JSONRequest can use the access-control security model
21:18:48 [ArtB]
... the server says the req will fail when the service cannot deal with JSON
21:19:03 [dorchard]
Hixie, this is the W3C which has committees. They get to decide things. That's why organizations pay to join.
21:19:38 [anne]
AvK: (1) no (2) don't need JSONRequest
21:19:43 [sicking]
JS: for 1 I feel that that would complicate the use of access-control too much since it would require that everything be put in a standardized JSONRequest envelope. It should be trivial to construct requirements that makes this obviously not work
21:19:49 [ArtB]
TR: the one requirement we should document is: whether or not we expect cross-site requests to carry "ambient" auth information
21:19:56 [sicking]
JS: for 2 I think that is out of scope for this version of the spec
21:20:41 [tlr]
use case level: do we want to be able to deal with access-protected resources?
21:20:57 [anne]
21:21:09 [ArtB]
AB: propose that JSONRequest is not in scope
21:21:09 [Hixie]
dorchard: sure, and it is imperative that the editor take into account all feedback
21:21:22 [Hixie]
dorchard: and if you have requirements that met, you should convey them to the editor
21:21:42 [Hixie]
dorchard: who i am sure will take them into account and deal with them (especially if they don't contradict other people's requirements)
21:21:50 [dorchard]
Hixie, but then you say when I give feedback and offer an alternative, that I'm "messing with the editors work"
21:21:51 [ArtB]
JS: that's not quite right
21:21:55 [Hixie]
dorchard: however, that's a far cry from committee-driven design
21:22:22 [Hixie]
dorchard: i'm talking about normative requirements here, not how the spec is written, which is basically irrelevant at the end of the day
21:23:00 [sicking]
JS: I think we should say that supporting JSONRequest is out of scope. I.e. we do not need to expand access-control such that JSONRequest is able to use it in this version of the ac spec
21:24:32 [ArtB]
DO: I would add a non-requirement section
21:24:38 [tlr]
21:24:46 [ArtB]
... add supporting JSONRequest to that section
21:25:24 [ArtB]
AB: propose we add a non-requirements section and add JSONRequest to that section and that we close ISSUE #18.
21:25:32 [ArtB]
AB: any objections?
21:25:36 [ArtB]
21:25:48 [ArtB]
RESOULTION: we add a non-requirements section and add JSONRequest to that section and that we close ISSUE #18
21:26:15 [ArtB]
Topic: Access Control Re-write Proposal
21:26:17 [dorchard]
21:27:01 [ArtB]
DO: Stuart Williams and I found the current prose a little confusing
21:27:13 [ArtB]
... we re-wrote it in pseudo-code
21:27:50 [ArtB]
... this approach is top-down
21:29:02 [ArtB]
... made a few other changes too (e.g. BNF)
21:29:25 [ArtB]
... Processing Model: added Stuart's overview input
21:30:11 [ArtB]
... The new algorithms are leveraged from the XACML spec
21:31:34 [ArtB]
... Access Item also redone in pseudo-code
21:31:42 [tlr]
21:31:59 [ArtB]
... We think the current style is diff to read and we think this is simpler to understand.
21:32:20 [ArtB]
... We want frank comments even if not flattering
21:32:38 [ArtB]
... If only part is adopted that's good too
21:32:47 [ArtB]
... If nothing is adopted that's OK too
21:33:13 [ArtB]
... There may be some holes/mistakes
21:33:25 [ArtB]
... But think about the overall style and think about:
21:33:34 [ArtB]
... 1. Is it easier to understand
21:33:36 [sicking]
21:33:40 [anne]
My personal view it that it's way harder to read and understand.
21:33:46 [ArtB]
... 2. Is it easier to implement?
21:34:00 [ArtB]
TR: agree with doing it top-down
21:34:11 [ArtB]
... I disagree with pseudo-code
21:34:49 [anne]
And pseudo-code definitely can't replace the current normative text.
21:34:50 [ArtB]
... the XACML is based on several operators and different states and some of those states do not apply (and adds more complexity)
21:36:02 [ArtB]
... need to keep it simple
21:36:17 [ArtB]
JS: I don't really care which style we use
21:36:20 [Hixie]
Hixie has joined #waf
21:36:26 [ArtB]
... just don't want to ever regress
21:36:51 [tlr]
no disagreement with that, either
21:36:58 [ArtB]
... need a full replacement before we change anything
21:37:09 [Hixie]
RRSAgent, pointer?
21:37:09 [RRSAgent]
21:37:22 [ArtB]
DO: you don't want new text to be lower quality than existing text
21:37:46 [ArtB]
... don't want to spend more effort on this if there isn't good support
21:38:06 [dorchard]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:38:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see sicking, Thomas, DOrchard, Doug, ArtB
21:39:11 [ArtB]
AB: what about a meeting next week?
21:39:16 [ArtB]
DO: think it would be good
21:39:25 [ArtB]
DS: only if there has been substantial progress
21:39:41 [ArtB]
TR: my schedule is free so far
21:39:56 [sicking]
can you hear me?
21:39:58 [tlr]
21:40:02 [tlr]
ack sicking
21:40:03 [sicking]
Zakim, unmute me
21:40:03 [Zakim]
sicking was not muted, sicking
21:40:04 [tlr]
21:40:13 [tlr]
we don't hear you
21:40:18 [sicking]
i'll type here
21:40:33 [sicking]
JS: I agree with DS
21:40:50 [sicking]
... would rather not spend time unless we have useful things to discuss regarding reqs
21:40:51 [ArtB]
AB: I think there is critical mass for a call next week
21:41:01 [anne]
I agree with Jonas and Doug
21:41:23 [ArtB]
AB: there is an action for everyone to submit comments on David and Sturart's proposal before next week's meeting.
21:41:51 [sicking]
JS: thanks guys
21:41:53 [anne]
I feel that a lot what we discussed could've been done over e-mail
21:41:55 [Zakim]
21:41:55 [ArtB]
AB: meeting adjorend
21:41:58 [Zakim]
21:42:02 [Zakim]
21:42:05 [ArtB]
rrsagent, make minutes public
21:42:05 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', ArtB. Try /msg RRSAgent help
21:42:06 [Zakim]
21:42:15 [ArtB]
rrsagent, make logs public
21:42:22 [ArtB]
rrsagent, make minutes
21:42:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
21:42:32 [Zakim]
21:42:34 [Zakim]
IA_WAF()3:00PM has ended
21:42:36 [Zakim]
Attendees were Anne_van_Kesteren, Thomas, +1.781.993.aaaa, ArtB, anne, DOrchard, Doug, Mike^mail, sicking
22:42:44 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #waf
23:02:03 [ArtB]
ArtB has joined #waf
23:02:57 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
23:02:57 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #waf
23:03:20 [ArtB]
rrsagent, log?
23:03:20 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'log'
23:05:22 [ArtB]
rrsagent, bye
23:05:22 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items