19:57:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #waf
19:57:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-waf-irc
19:57:56 <trackbot-ng> RRSAgent, make logs member
19:57:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #waf
19:57:58 <trackbot-ng> Zakim, this will be WAF
19:57:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot-ng; I see IA_WAF()3:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
19:57:59 <trackbot-ng> Meeting: Web Application Formats Working Group Teleconference
19:57:59 <trackbot-ng> Date: 06 February 2008
19:58:11 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Feb/0027.html
19:58:13 <MikeSmith> zakim, code?
19:58:13 <Zakim> the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MikeSmith
19:58:39 <Zakim> IA_WAF()3:00PM has now started
19:58:46 <Zakim> +??P3
19:58:51 <ArtB> rrsagent, make logs public
19:58:53 <anne> Zakim. who is om the phone?
19:58:58 <MikeSmith> Zakim, ??P3 is me
19:58:58 <Zakim> +MikeSmith; got it
19:59:06 <anne> Zakim. who is on the phone?
19:59:18 <Zakim> +MSEder
19:59:29 <ArtB> zakim, MSEder is ArtB
19:59:29 <Zakim> +ArtB; got it
20:00:10 <anne> Zakim, who is on the phone?
20:00:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see MikeSmith, ArtB
20:03:37 <Zakim> +Dave_Orchard
20:04:39 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #waf
20:04:48 <dorchard> zakim, who's on the phone?
20:04:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see MikeSmith, ArtB, Dave_Orchard
20:05:18 <anne> ArtB, k
20:05:25 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
20:05:48 <sicking> sicking has joined #waf
20:06:01 <ArtB> zakim, Mozilla is Sicking
20:06:01 <Zakim> +Sicking; got it
20:06:17 <anne> Zakim, passcode?
20:06:17 <Zakim> the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), anne
20:06:23 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
20:06:29 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
20:06:32 <ArtB> Chair: Art
20:06:45 <Zakim> +anne
20:06:54 <ArtB> Present: Art, Jonas, David, Mike, Anne, Thomas (IRC)
20:07:01 <ArtB> Topic: Review Agenda
20:07:46 <ArtB> AB: we will skip #2 and #3 since there were no comments on those agenda items
20:08:09 <ArtB> Topic: Proposal for a way to avoid round-trip ...
20:08:36 <ArtB> AB: Anne, what's the status?
20:08:42 <ArtB> AvK: pending some comments
20:08:51 <ArtB> ... integrated in the ED now
20:09:13 <ArtB> AB: who are you waiting for comments from?
20:09:24 <ArtB> AvK: everyone i.e. no one in particular
20:09:31 <ArtB> ... Jonas had some comments
20:09:45 <ArtB> JS: not much we can do to tweak this
20:10:06 <ArtB> ... not sure we can do what Mark wants
20:10:31 <ArtB> JS: I think the current spec is as secure as it can be made
20:10:47 <ArtB> AvK: Google says its important as well as the REST guys
20:11:19 <ArtB> AB: does this proposal address the issues the REST guys made
20:11:24 <ArtB> AvK: yes, I think so
20:11:31 <ArtB> JS: but they haven't responded as such
20:11:48 <ArtB> DO: I found it hard to follow; not sure how it all works together
20:12:01 <ArtB> ... may be waiting for it to be integrated in the spec
20:12:10 <ArtB> AvK: I've also added examples to the spec
20:12:30 <ArtB> ... I think I've addressed their concerns
20:12:51 <ArtB> ... If 10 posts, need to do 12 requests total and that's not too bad
20:13:03 <ArtB> JS: would still like to get some more feedback from them
20:13:13 <ArtB> AvK: I agree explicit consent would be better
20:13:33 <ArtB> JS: there a couple of minor details I still want to change but they aren't behavioral
20:13:42 <ArtB> ... e.g. some stuff with the slashes
20:13:56 <ArtB> AvK: must start with a slash but doesn't have to end with one
20:14:30 <ArtB> JS: if I have the foo dir is /foo or /foo/?
20:14:39 <ArtB> ... not clear where to put the policy
20:15:29 <ArtB> JS: it would be good to get some more feedback on the URI syntax
20:15:41 <ArtB> AvK: agree but that would be relatively easy to change
20:17:00 <ArtB> AB: agree we need more review and "explicit consent"; how do we get that?
20:17:09 <ArtB> DO: typically would publish a new WD
20:17:42 <ArtB> AvK: could you send an email to Mark, Tyler, and others?
20:17:52 <ArtB> DO: Stuart and I also raised related concerns
20:17:57 <MikeSmith> Tyler is Tyler Close
20:18:09 <ArtB> AvK: would like to get quick feedback
20:18:34 <ArtB> DO: the reqs seem to be settling but this is a big change thus a new WD seems like the right way to go
20:18:50 <ArtB> AvK: I suppose a new WD would be OK but prefer a LC
20:19:02 <ArtB> ... we could publish a WD and then in a few weeks go to LC
20:19:34 <ArtB> DO: I think the changes are too substantial to go directly to LC
20:19:52 <ArtB> AvK: there is a precedence to publish a FPWD and LC  at the same time
20:20:05 <ArtB> AB: any objections to an immediate new WD?
20:20:22 <ArtB> AvK: don't want it to delay LC
20:20:42 <tlr> zakim, call thomas-skype
20:20:42 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
20:20:44 <Zakim> +Thomas
20:21:04 <ArtB> AB: Mike, what is the Team's position?
20:21:16 <ArtB> ... on WD and LC?
20:22:32 <ArtB> MS: I think there have been too many objections to this work item to publish this as an LC under the current charter and its extension
20:22:51 <ArtB> ... this isn't a final decision by the Team but that's where we stand now
20:23:22 <ArtB> AvK: are these objections from the Team or Members? Where is the archive?
20:23:44 <ArtB> MS: some on the public archive; some based on internal discussions
20:24:03 <ArtB> AvK: I think we've addressed the issues raised
20:24:27 <ArtB> MS: there is a question about whether this spec is within the group's charter
20:25:15 <ArtB> ... The charter is a bit broad
20:25:35 <ArtB> ... I think the group did this work in good faith
20:25:49 <ArtB> ... If people didn't pay attention, that's not this group's fault
20:26:12 <ArtB> ... I don't think anyone tried to "sneak in this work" 
20:27:20 <dorchard> I'm not sure what this means for the group publishing another Working Draft though...
20:27:37 <ArtB> TR: I don't have much to add to what Mike said
20:28:06 <ArtB> ... There should not be a LC going out under the current charter
20:28:35 <ArtB> MS: that is true i.e. that's the Team's consensus
20:29:33 <ArtB> AvK: the Selectors spec in the Web API WG was able to go to LC
20:29:52 <ArtB> ... despite going out of charter
20:30:01 <ArtB> TR: I don't know the specifics of that case
20:30:33 <ArtB> JS: one reason this group started this work is because this mechanism is needed by XBL2
20:31:21 <ArtB> AB: I agree and have argued that point
20:31:38 <ArtB> ... Seems like the problem is that we are now in this "limbo" state
20:31:46 <anne> http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-api/ is the precedent I was talking about
20:32:15 <ArtB> MS: not clear how long it will take for the new charter to get approved
20:33:10 <ArtB> ... we have a combination of the "limbo" state but also not clear where this is going to end up in the next charters
20:33:24 <ArtB> DO: we should be able to publish a new WD, right?
20:33:31 <ArtB> ... or is that not allowed?
20:34:27 <ArtB> AB: yes, what is the answer Mike?
20:34:43 <ArtB> MS: I can't make a decision now
20:34:44 <tlr> q+
20:34:56 <ArtB> AvK: when will you know?
20:35:36 <ArtB> TR: based on my recollection - there will be no LC pub;  I do not recall a decsion on the WD question
20:36:04 <ArtB> ... If the WG wants to publish a "normal" WD then the Team can discuss this
20:36:17 <ArtB> AvK: we want not just a new WD but also a LC
20:36:18 <dorchard> q+
20:36:21 <tlr> q-
20:36:59 <MikeSmith> q+ to say I can go ahead with plan to publish a WD first
20:37:00 <ArtB> DO: I think we should publish a WD and not a LC regardless of precedence
20:37:19 <ArtB> AvK: again, I'm OK with a WD now but then want a LC two weeks later
20:38:40 <ArtB> AB: perhaps we can consensus to publish a WD now and then ask the Team to consider us publishing a LC during the extension period
20:39:22 <ArtB> AvK: I think there is indeed a precedence for us to publish a LC during the extension period
20:40:04 <ArtB> AB: I propose we publish a new WD ASAP
20:40:09 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
20:40:26 <ArtB> [none heard]
20:40:35 <ArtB> AB: any changes you want to make Anne?
20:40:43 <ArtB> AvK: just a few changes
20:40:56 <ArtB> DO: and I have a couple of quick changes I'd like to get in
20:42:11 <ArtB> MS: once we are ready, we should be able to get it published quickly
20:42:39 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: publish a new WD as soon as Anne is ready
20:42:48 <ArtB> DO: let's set a deadline for comments
20:43:00 <ArtB> AB: OK
20:43:14 <ArtB> AvK: let's set the target for next Tuesday
20:43:47 <ArtB> ACTION: Mike determine the Team's position on us publishing a LC version during this extension period
20:43:47 <trackbot-ng> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Mike
20:43:47 <trackbot-ng> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mamend, mike)
20:44:30 <MikeSmith> ACTION: Michael(tm) to determine the Team's position on us publishing a LC version during this extension perioad
20:44:30 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-167 - Determine the Team's position on us publishing a LC version during this extension perioad [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2008-02-13].
20:44:32 <tlr> I have no such sense.
20:44:52 <ArtB> AB: Mike, when do you expect the charter to go out for formal AC review?
20:45:14 <tlr> s/no such sense/no good sense when charter review will happen/
20:45:46 <ArtB> MS: I will push this and hope to get it out next week
20:46:02 <ArtB> AB: ok, great
20:46:43 <tlr> MS: I will report back to the group when I have a clearer idea; can't do that today, though
20:47:25 <MikeSmith> tlr - thanks
20:48:04 <Zakim> -Thomas
20:49:32 <MikeSmith> q?
20:49:38 <MikeSmith> q-
20:49:54 <ArtB> Topic: Issue #21
20:51:01 <ArtB> AB: are there any gaps or holes that need to be filled?
20:51:15 <ArtB> ... the latest ED contains a lot of info to address this issue
20:51:59 <ArtB> JS: we used to have a description about what can currently be done regarding XSS but it was removed
20:52:19 <ArtB> ... would like to know why it was removed because it seems like that info is relevant for the Security Model
20:52:53 <ArtB> AvK: I think we just changed the Intro; it's bit more abstract now
20:53:03 <ArtB> ... we still mention the Same Origin Policy
20:53:31 <ArtB> AB: Jonas, can you identify the text you'd like to get added?
20:53:40 <ArtB> JS: yes, I can submit something
20:56:10 <ArtB> ACTION: Jonas submit an input that will result in closing Issue #21
20:56:10 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-168 - Submit an input that will result in closing Issue #21 [on Jonas Sicking - due 2008-02-13].
20:56:52 <MikeSmith> action-155?
20:56:52 <trackbot-ng> ACTION-155 -- Jonas Sicking to send a request for comments regarding the policy decision questions and issues -- due 2008-01-30 -- CLOSED
20:56:52 <trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/actions/155
20:57:15 <MikeSmith> issue-21?
20:57:15 <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-21 -- What is the Security Model for the access-control spec? -- RAISED
20:57:15 <trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/21
20:57:40 <ArtB> Topic: Issue #20
20:58:42 <ArtB> AB: have a detailed discussion on the mail list
20:59:53 <ArtB> ... we've had inputs from Thomas, Tyler, Jonas and maybe others
20:59:58 <ArtB> ... Jonas: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Feb/0007.html
21:00:30 <ArtB> ... just want to discuss how to get consensus and keep the technical discussion on the mail list
21:01:00 <ArtB> JS: need to have some policy enforcement in the client
21:01:17 <ArtB> AvK: I want to close
21:01:32 <ArtB> DO: I'm still concerned about this issue
21:01:48 <ArtB> ... we've been discussing this issue internally
21:01:56 <ArtB> ... I'm not prepared to close it now
21:02:03 <ArtB> JS: but we need feedback on this issue
21:02:21 <ArtB> DO: I understand; it's been hard to get the right people in BEA involved
21:02:37 <ArtB> ... I've been talking to other people too; I'm active on it
21:03:03 <ArtB> JS: currently client PEP adds complexity
21:03:17 <ArtB> ... wonder if we have added to many features
21:03:24 <Zakim> -MikeSmith
21:03:31 <ArtB> ... but I'll post my comments on the mail list
21:03:44 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #waf
21:06:23 <billyjack> billyjack has joined #waf
21:06:33 <ArtB> [ some discussion missing ... ]
21:07:03 <billyjack> Zakim, code?
21:07:03 <Zakim> the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), billyjack
21:07:26 <anne> sicking: 
21:07:27 <ArtB> Topic: Issue #22 ac4csr-webarch
21:07:39 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:07:50 <anne> sicking, so dropping method whitelisting?
21:07:53 <billyjack> Zakim, IPcaller is me
21:07:53 <Zakim> +billyjack; got it
21:08:01 <sicking> anne, yes
21:08:46 <ArtB> AB: what should we do with this?
21:08:47 <anne> seems fine to me... less text :)
21:08:58 <ArtB> DO: I thought the Hixie and Anne proposal addressed it
21:09:03 <ArtB> AvK: yes I agree
21:09:15 <ArtB> DO: I think we should resolve it as closed
21:09:38 <ArtB> ACTION: Orchard close issue #22
21:09:38 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-169 - Close issue #22 [on David Orchard - due 2008-02-13].
21:09:58 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
21:10:20 <ArtB> AB: do we want to have a call next week?
21:10:26 <ArtB> AvK: I'm fine either way
21:10:43 <ArtB> DO: hopefully we should have just published a WD and may not have much to talk about
21:10:50 <ArtB> AB: I tend to agree
21:10:55 <ArtB> AvK: what about two week?
21:11:21 <ArtB> AB: sounds good and hopefull Mike will have an answer from tthe Team regarding LC by then
21:11:44 <ArtB> JS: Mozilla is going to do a security review next Tuesday
21:11:57 <ArtB> ... it is open to the public and anyone can dial in
21:12:04 <ArtB> ... I will post details to the mail list
21:12:18 <ArtB> AB: listen mode only OK?
21:12:22 <ArtB> JS: absolutely
21:13:00 <ArtB> MS: yes, two weeks should be enough time
21:13:14 <ArtB> AB: no call next week; next call on Feb 20
21:13:32 <Zakim> -Dave_Orchard
21:13:41 <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
21:13:41 <Zakim> -anne
21:13:43 <Zakim> -billyjack
21:13:45 <Zakim> -Sicking
21:13:46 <Zakim> -ArtB
21:13:46 <Zakim> IA_WAF()3:00PM has ended
21:13:47 <Zakim> Attendees were MikeSmith, ArtB, Dave_Orchard, Sicking, anne, Thomas, billyjack
21:13:55 <ArtB> rrsagent, make minutes
21:13:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-waf-minutes.html ArtB
21:14:34 <ArtB> Present: Art, Anne, Mike, Jonas, David, Thomas 
21:14:41 <ArtB> rrsagent, make minutes
21:14:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-waf-minutes.html ArtB
21:15:02 <ArtB> zakim, bye
21:15:02 <Zakim> Zakim has left #waf
21:19:58 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
21:19:58 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-waf-actions.rdf :
21:19:58 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mike determine the Team's position on us publishing a LC version during this extension period [1]
21:19:58 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-waf-irc#T20-43-47
21:19:58 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Michael(tm) to determine the Team's position on us publishing a LC version during this extension perioad [2]
21:19:58 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-waf-irc#T20-44-30
21:19:58 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jonas submit an input that will result in closing Issue #21 [3]
21:19:58 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-waf-irc#T20-56-10
21:19:58 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Orchard close issue #22 [4]
21:19:58 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-waf-irc#T21-09-38