IRC log of tagmem on 2008-02-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:38:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:38:36 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:38:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
18:00:00 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
18:00:03 [Stuart]
zakim, this will be TAG
18:00:04 [Zakim]
ok, Stuart; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start now
18:00:13 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
18:00:14 [Zakim]
18:00:27 [Zakim]
18:00:33 [Stuart]
zakim, ?? is me
18:00:33 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
18:00:55 [Zakim]
18:01:15 [DanC_lap]
18:01:30 [DanC_lap]
agenda+ Convene
18:01:38 [DanC_lap]
agenda + Quarterly Report
18:01:48 [DanC_lap]
agenda + Issue httpRedirections-57 (ISSUE-57)
18:02:01 [DanC_lap]
agenda + Issue abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56)
18:02:14 [DanC_lap]
agenda + Issue passwordInTheClear-52 (ISSUE-52)
18:02:22 [DanC_lap]
agenda + Issue namespaceDocument-8 (ISSUE-8)
18:03:06 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
18:03:06 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
18:03:08 [Zakim]
18:03:10 [DanC_lap]
agenda + Vancouver F2F
18:03:30 [DanC_lap]
agenda + XRI comments
18:03:43 [DanC_lap]
Regrets: TimBL, Norm
18:03:58 [DanC_lap]
regrets+ TVR
18:04:04 [DanC_lap]
Scribe: DanC
18:04:10 [DanC_lap]
Chair: Stuart
18:04:13 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up item 1
18:04:13 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene" taken up [from DanC_lap]
18:04:27 [DanC_lap]
proposed: to accept as a true record
18:04:57 [DanC_lap]
RESOLVED: to accept as a true record
18:05:31 [DanC_lap]
PROPOSED: to cancel 6 march and meet again 13 Mar
18:05:43 [DanC_lap]
Noah is nominated to scribe 13 Mar
18:05:49 [DanC_lap]
RESOLVED: to cancel 6 march and meet again 13 Mar
18:06:03 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, next item
18:06:03 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Quarterly Report" taken up [from DanC_lap]
18:06:56 [DanC_lap]
SKW: I had one comment to move boilerplate to the end
18:06:57 [DanC_lap]
18:07:04 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
18:07:16 [Zakim]
18:07:17 [ht]
Minor editorial: "due a change" -> "due to a change"
18:07:19 [noah2]
noah2 has joined #tagmem
18:07:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.253.aaaa
18:07:45 [ht]
"other working paper" -> "other working papers"
18:08:03 [noah_office]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
18:08:03 [Zakim]
+noah_office; got it
18:08:08 [jar]
zakim, +1.617.253.aaaa is jar
18:08:08 [Zakim]
+jar; got it
18:08:43 [ht]
"on one ore more" -> "on one or more"
18:08:55 [DanC_lap]
DC: likewise, I suggest picking the most interesting bit and making it visible in the top screenful.
18:08:56 [Zakim]
18:09:03 [DanC_lap]
SKW: ok, the number of liaison meetings is remarkable
18:10:03 [DanC_lap]
SKW: OK, I'll fold in these comments...
18:10:32 [DanC_lap]
... public or member?
18:10:41 [DanC_lap]
DanC: more valuble public
18:10:47 [DanC_lap]
HT: yup; tag works in public
18:10:55 [DanC_lap]
SKW: www-tag or tag-announce?
18:11:01 [DanC_lap]
DC: tag-announce... and/or the tag blog
18:11:05 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, next item
18:11:05 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Issue httpRedirections-57 (ISSUE-57)" taken up [from DanC_lap]
18:11:25 [DanC_lap]
18:11:25 [trackbot-ng]
ACTION-101 -- Dan Connolly to , Tim to produce Visio diagram to send to Leo -- due 2008-02-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:11:25 [trackbot-ng]
18:11:51 [DanC_lap]
see also #swig discussion...
18:11:51 [DanC_lap]
18:11:51 [DanC_lap]
[15:09] *timbl refreshes
18:11:51 [DanC_lap]
18:11:51 [DanC_lap]
[15:11] <DanC_lap>note
18:11:52 [DanC_lap] source...
18:11:56 [DanC_lap]
close action-101
18:11:56 [trackbot-ng]
ACTION-101 , Tim to produce Visio diagram to send to Leo closed
18:12:53 [DanC_lap]
SKW: I did attempt to get in touch with leo and richard about joining a tag telcon; no response yet
18:13:25 [DanC_lap]
-> [httpRedirections-57] Resource-Decription Header: a possible proposal to consider.
18:13:37 [DanC_lap]
(wiki page? help?)
18:14:22 [Norm]
18:14:29 [DanC_lap]
JAR: suppose you have a URI for a resource and you don't know whether it's an information resource; this header would tell you [oops; missed the gist of it]
18:14:58 [ht]
q+ to query the intended range of use of Link-Header
18:15:36 [DanC_lap]
q+ to ask for elaboration of the use case(s)
18:16:26 [Stuart]
There seems to be a summary of the above thread at:
18:16:44 [DanC_lap]
JAR: the point here is go from URI of a thing to the URI of a description of the thing
18:17:22 [Stuart]
18:17:27 [Stuart]
18:17:31 [Stuart]
ack ht
18:17:31 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to query the intended range of use of Link-Header
18:17:34 [Zakim]
18:17:41 [DanC_lap]
Ashok: is this like discovering metadata? to the extent that it is, yes, we should see that this is standardized
18:19:10 [DanC_lap]
HT: the negative consequence of this approach is to say: anyone who has metadata about a resource should put this link header in the response to GET/HEAD about the resource
18:19:14 [noah_office]
18:19:23 [DanC_lap]
... and that's not what HTTP is designed to do, AFAIK
18:19:30 [noah_office]
Henry, I have some sympathy for your argument that HTTP is not mainly designed for "
18:19:47 [Stuart]
18:19:54 [Stuart]
acl Danc
18:20:02 [Stuart]
ack DanC
18:20:02 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ask for elaboration of the use case(s)
18:20:10 [DanC_lap]
HT: I think something creative in the case of a failure to give a 200 makes sense, [and one other case...]
18:20:13 [noah_office]
Henry, I have some sympathy for your argument that HTTP is not mainly designed for "tell me all sorts of random stuff about the resource". How do you feel, then, about 303? Not too evil given you didn't have the goods for a 200.
18:20:34 [noah_office]
DC: Jonathan, can you start the story at the beginning, with more recognizable players in the scenario?
18:20:57 [DanC_lap]
JAR: suppose I have some spreadsheet data in a .csv file...
18:21:07 [DanC_lap]
... and I want to be able to tell people who the author of the spreadsheet is...
18:21:09 [ht]
s/[and one other case...]/or if the request explicitly _asks_ for metadata/
18:21:29 [DanC_lap]
... and I write { <spreadsheet.csv> dc:author "JAR" }; where do i put the triple?
18:21:45 [Ashok]
18:21:47 [DanC_lap]
... it's not clear where that metadata belongs in HTTP
18:22:28 [ht]
DC: Some folk have actually written code to implement Link-Header
18:22:34 [ht]
... What are they using it for?
18:23:03 [noah_office]
q+ to ask whether these solutions scale well enough to lots of sources of metadata?
18:23:45 [ht]
DC: How does this get esclated from the 'nice to have' to the 'must have'
18:23:54 [ht]
... we've lived w/o it for a long time
18:24:14 [ht]
JR: LSID protocol has this, and gets used a lot
18:25:05 [ht]
... From an LSID for a (fasta?) file, you can frame a request for metadata _about_ that (fasta?) file
18:25:22 [Stuart]
18:25:29 [DanC_lap]
ack Stuart
18:25:33 [ht]
q+ to respond to DC wrt 'good use of http'
18:25:34 [Stuart]
ack Stuart
18:25:59 [DanC_lap]
q+ to report on IETF standardization (or lack thereof) status
18:26:42 [DanC_lap]
Stuart: the stories DC evoked from JAR cover much of what I was interested in... for a non-information resource, the 303 mechanism allows us to find metadata, but there's no analog for information resources
18:27:19 [DanC_lap]
Stuart: it reminds me of something J. Borden [sp?] wrote about... a Resource-Description header
18:28:07 [DanC_lap]
... it's related to the Link header, or at least the rel="meta" case... the Link header has a "swiss army knife" feel; lots of knobs and params
18:28:47 [jar]
MGET has been proposed (metadata get)
18:28:57 [DanC_lap]
... and reminds me of the URIQA [sp?] idea of adding an HTTP verb to get metadata
18:29:09 [DanC_lap]
... I suppose methods/verbs are much higher cost than headers
18:29:10 [noah_office]
18:29:11 [DanC_lap]
q+ daveo
18:29:15 [DanC_lap]
ack Ashok
18:29:18 [Stuart]
ack ashok
18:30:01 [DanC_lap]
Ashok: from the web services context... suppose I have a URI for an endpoint, but I don't really know what messages it supports, so I'd like to find a WSDL description of it.
18:30:21 [Stuart]
ack noah
18:30:21 [Zakim]
noah_office, you wanted to ask whether these solutions scale well enough to lots of sources of metadata?
18:30:33 [DanC_lap]
Ashok: I've seen a few mechanisms for that case; perhaps we should standardize one
18:31:08 [DanC_lap]
Noah: I wonder if a pointer to one source is all that useful... as opposed to a list of 2 or more...
18:31:23 [Stuart]
fwiw... there is no intention that the number of description references is 1
18:32:03 [DanC_lap]
... if we look at ordinary HTTP, when you do GET... you can imagine more complex designs, but one body works pretty well. "don't make it more complicated than it needs to be" is the answer.
18:32:03 [Stuart]
also fwiw... powder are also looking at the link header as a way of associating POWDER labels with resources.
18:32:39 [DanC_lap]
(yeah; where did Noah get the idea that only one pointer fits in any of the proposals so far?)
18:33:45 [DanC_lap]
... am I wrong to think the metadata story is more complicated than just one place to look?
18:33:50 [Stuart]
18:33:59 [DanC_lap]
DanC: no... most of the useful proposals allow a number of pointers
18:34:50 [DanC_lap]
Noah: ok, but even so, I can imagine it might get more complicated than a list; and it's not clear what goes in the list and what doesn't.
18:35:29 [Stuart]
ack ht
18:35:29 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to respond to DC wrt 'good use of http'
18:35:41 [DanC_lap]
SKW: yes, the header approach isn't exhaustive; it's those that the server operator chose to refer to
18:35:52 [DanC_lap]
q- later
18:36:24 [DanC_lap]
HT: I'm not comfortable having the server choose which things to pointer, if this is to generalize the 303 case
18:36:39 [DanC_lap]
[I hadn't considered that this might obsolete the 303 mechanism. I'm getting lost, I'm afraid.]
18:37:24 [DanC_lap]
HT: also, how do authors who don't control their servers deploy this information?
18:37:32 [Stuart]
fwiw I think that the 303 solution has only a single redirection target (unless you chain through a bunch of them).
18:37:42 [DanC_lap]
[simple: they don't. we'd be recommending that authors get control of this mechanism, exactly.]
18:38:03 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, mute DanC
18:38:03 [Zakim]
DanC.a should now be muted
18:38:28 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
18:38:44 [Norm]
HT: I want to note three categories where we can look for solutions
18:39:06 [Norm]
HT: 1. the 303/linked header story where we talk about changing responses contain based on ... who knows what at this point
18:39:23 [DanC_lap]
q+ to ask what I missed about the connection between Link: and 303
18:39:41 [Norm]
... 2. add a new request, or several new requests; we may think that's harder to deploy but the cost/benefit analysis might make it the right thing (MGET, eg.)
18:40:26 [Norm]
... and 3. and in the ARK approach, systematic naming. URIs with mandated syntaxes; you can ask for the document, metadata, or something else (I forget what)
18:40:36 [Stuart]
ack daveo
18:40:37 [Norm]
... SO there are a number of places we could look.
18:40:46 [Norm]
DaveO: I wanted to make 3 points.
18:41:10 [Norm]
... 1. Henry objected to a header, but I'm more sanguine about a header for this. It struck me as similar to content-location.
18:41:47 [Norm]
DaveO: Whether you think of the URI for the content-location as metadata or not is something I don't want to get into, but I think a header is ok.
18:42:26 [Norm]
DaveO: I also wanted to support Ashok's point about metadata. WRT Noah's question about the kinds of responses, you can get back a metadata document that has several flavors of metadata.
18:42:39 [Stuart]
q+ to ask ashok whether this kind of approach would be a welcome addition to the WS 'armory'
18:42:46 [Norm]
...You can ask for different sorts, or you can ask for them all.
18:43:12 [Norm]
...There are issues of scoping and paging through WSDL documents, for example.
18:43:35 [Norm]
...This has been deployed in a bunch of interesting scenarios; there's a motorcycle consortium using metadata discovery.
18:44:29 [Norm]
... and 3. on where we can learn things, this reminded me of the problems that the access control folks are working on. In their solution, they have a two-part approach where you can put the access control in headers, or you can put it in an XML processing instruction.
18:45:08 [Norm]
...The access control spec says that if you get a representation that has the access control PI in it and that's a cross-site request that should be denied, then that's supposed to stop the processing.
18:45:25 [Norm]
...That is obviously there to allow folks w/o access to the server to put access control in the document.
18:45:27 [Stuart]
18:45:30 [Stuart]
ack danc
18:45:30 [DanC_lap]
(we seem to be talking about a huge design space... I wonder if this is all in order... hmm... yup, is about "obtaining a description of a resource (typically a non-information resource) where the ")
18:45:31 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to report on IETF standardization (or lack thereof) status and to ask what I missed about the connection between Link: and 303
18:45:51 [Norm]
DanC: If any W3C work is going to be based on the link header, then the current status isn't good enough.
18:46:06 [Norm]
...That's the short version, the long version probably isn't worth our time here.
18:46:24 [Norm]
...I believe this one has timed out. Mark Nottingham isn't disposed to start again until he gets more support.
18:46:38 [Norm]
Stuart: I pinged Mark too.
18:47:09 [Norm]
DanC: On link and 303, I got a bunch of stories about link, but somehow the 303 and link stories aren't connecting in my brain. They seem releated, but can someone tell me how?
18:47:17 [Norm]
Stuart: I'll try.
18:47:48 [Norm]
... 303's don't work well for information resources.
18:48:02 [Norm]
... That can get you a pointer to the metadata that tells you where the real bits are, then you have to do three round trips.
18:48:41 [Norm]
Scribe got lost.
18:48:53 [Norm]
DanC: How does link work in the non IR case?
18:49:06 [ht]
Consider the example of the W3C home page, which we serve millions of times a day, I believe: If we go down the Resource-Description header route, we will be adding 1+ % to our traffic
18:49:16 [Norm]
Stuart: If you put a link in, then that link could point to information about the resource. So the link might be used instead of the 303.
18:49:27 [Norm]
DanC: Slowly. Let's say there's a URI for my car. What's the response code?
18:49:40 [Norm]
Stuart: Let's say it's a 303 to a description. You might say that's enough, no link header needed.
18:49:49 [Norm]
... You could, for good measure, put in a link ehader that points to the same place
18:50:00 [Norm]
Henry: Or maybe the real value, since that's what the header tells you
18:50:04 [Norm]
Stuart: Yes, maybe.
18:50:07 [Norm]
q+ davoe
18:50:28 [Norm]
Stuart: Actually, you could think there are several relevant resources, I might put in severl of them.
18:50:30 [ht]
s/Or maybe the real value/That duplication would be of real value, because it clarifies what the 303 is telling you/
18:50:31 [Stuart]
ack s
18:50:31 [Zakim]
Stuart, you wanted to ask ashok whether this kind of approach would be a welcome addition to the WS 'armory'
18:50:55 [DanC_lap]
18:50:58 [DanC_lap]
18:51:28 [DanC_lap]
Stuart: re web services approaches... you mentioned that there are several existing mechanisms... would one more be welcome?
18:51:53 [DanC_lap]
Ashok: the existing mechanisms haven't been all that widely deployed/endorsed, so one that is more widely adopted might be welcome
18:52:14 [Stuart]
also that a single widely adopted mechanism is better than several adopted in fragments.
18:52:18 [Stuart]
18:52:53 [Stuart]
18:53:20 [DanC_lap]
Ashok: the web services scenarios I have in mind, and those I hear from DaveO, have very specific metadata: WSDL, policies; I hear something different from Noah. I wonder if one mechanism suits both.
18:54:01 [ht]
HST thinks RDDL bridges the gap between what Ashok is describing and what Noah described
18:54:06 [DanC_lap]
... in the general case, there's no way to exhaustively find all the metadata relevant to some resource.
18:55:09 [jar]
you never know ahead of time whether there will be metadata, or what it will be
18:55:22 [DanC_lap]
Noah: how can the server know that the client wants a WSDL policy as opposed to other stuff?
18:56:00 [Stuart]
18:56:01 [Norm]
+q to RDDL
18:56:06 [Stuart]
ack dave
18:56:08 [Stuart]
ack dav
18:56:10 [Norm]
+1 to RDDL
18:56:12 [Norm]
ack norm
18:56:12 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to RDDL
18:56:31 [DanC_lap]
HT: RDDL expresses exactly these sorts of relationships, i.e. to distinguish WSDL policies from authors, [normative references, schemas, etc.]
18:57:15 [Ashok]
Yup, RDDL is a possible answer
18:57:40 [DanC_lap]
[RDDL is one interesting point in the design space, but it seems to me that we're talking about query routing, one of the classic unsolved problems in computer science. this issue has expanded to be computer-science-complete]
18:57:53 [jar]
So how does RDDL help me find the author of a CSV file?
18:58:44 [DanC_lap]
DaveO: this sounds an awful lot like SOAP
18:59:01 [Stuart]
I think that daves point was about mustunderstand.
18:59:03 [noah_office]
DO: Sort of ironic. The access control folks couldn't force mustUnderstand semantics to make sure their header would be honoroed. We have SOAP. Interesting to ask why it's not good enough, or why we don't need something similar in HTTP.
18:59:41 [noah_office]
Also (speaking for myself, not Dave): note that SOAP is a media type, and can be returned in response to GET.
19:00:18 [Stuart]
19:00:43 [DanC_lap]
DO: SOAP addresses this protocol need for the XML space; I can see room to generalize to non-XML stuff
19:01:04 [DanC_lap]
SKW: [missed]
19:01:06 [Stuart]
ack danc
19:02:24 [jar]
19:02:28 [jar]
19:02:32 [DanC_lap]
poll braintstorm: is Link: rel="meta" a good approach to finding author information for protein data?
19:02:40 [noah_office]
FWIW, my answer would be neither "yes" nor "no", but "premature", we don't know yet.
19:02:49 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
19:02:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DanC.a, Stuart, Ashok_Malhotra, Ht, noah_office, jar, Norm, Dave_Orchard
19:02:57 [noah_office]
I suppose the conservative approach would be for me to vote "no"
19:03:31 [DanC_lap]
DanC: it's the best I've seen, though I'm not sure it's so good as to be worth all the blue-helmets standardization cost
19:04:09 [DanC_lap]
Stuart: it's a useful approach, though rel="meta" should be grounded in URI-space...
19:04:31 [DanC_lap]
... that would let you distinguish WSDL from POWDER desciriptions from others
19:04:51 [DanC_lap]
Ashok: not sure yet...
19:05:10 [DanC_lap]
HT: looks like it would work, but I wouldn't recommend it
19:05:50 [DanC_lap]
Noah: would like to look at the larger picture first
19:06:14 [DanC_lap]
... where metadata lives and who wants to know about which parts when
19:06:42 [DanC_lap]
JAR: I think it's better than nothing; there's a pretty powerful need for something like this, and Link is probably an 80% solution
19:06:55 [DanC_lap]
... I can see how it's not particularly tasteful[/elegant]
19:07:08 [DanC_lap]
... but [the perfect is the enemy of the good]
19:07:22 [DanC_lap]
Norm: maybe; too early to tell
19:07:49 [DanC_lap]
Dave: yes, too early to pick a winner, but ...
19:08:02 [DanC_lap]
... I can see the point that something is better than nothing
19:08:49 [DanC_lap]
[HT: no progress on curie; I gotta go; there's some urgency; hope to get something for you tues]
19:08:53 [Zakim]
19:09:35 [Stuart]
19:10:20 [DanC_lap]
next step seems to be discussion at the ftf on Thu. "@@ Jonathan and/or Stuart please provide additional structure for this session."
19:10:24 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, next item
19:10:24 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Issue abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56)" taken up [from DanC_lap]
19:10:39 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
19:12:20 [DanC_lap]
HT: no progress on curie; I gotta go; there's some urgency; hope to get something for you tues
19:12:52 [DanC_lap]
SKW: Swick has invited the TAG to participate in RDFa last call review
19:13:50 [DanC_lap]
NM: re the self-describing web draft, TimBL pointed out a gap between the media type registry and RDFa
19:13:54 [DanC_lap]
19:15:50 [DanC_lap]
NM: and I'm not clear on the follow-your-nose story
19:16:00 [Stuart]
ack dan
19:17:10 [Stuart]
fwiw RDFa LC looks scheduled to end on 21 Mar
19:17:42 [DanC_lap]
DanC: yes, I'd like to go slowly thru some RDFa examples/tests, presuming nothing but ubiquitously deployed stuff and see if we can follow our nose
19:18:51 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: Norm review RDFa LC spec by 21 Mar
19:18:51 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Norm
19:18:58 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: NDW review RDFa LC spec by 21 Mar
19:18:58 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - NDW
19:19:16 [DanC_lap]
trackbot-ng, status
19:19:22 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: Norman review RDFa LC spec by 21 Mar
19:19:22 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-102 - Review RDFa LC spec by 21 Mar [on Norman Walsh - due 2008-02-28].
19:19:30 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: Jonathan review RDFa LC spec by 21 Mar
19:19:30 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-103 - Review RDFa LC spec by 21 Mar [on Jonathan Rees - due 2008-02-28].
19:21:08 [jar]
what if we changed the value space?
19:21:34 [jar]
e.g. qname value space is pair of prefix, suffix
19:21:59 [Stuart]
the valuespce for CURIEs *is* URIs and the mapping will be context specific as currentlt specifief
19:22:32 [jar]
hmm. could change the way the spec is written... blah
19:22:43 [DanC_lap]
-> NewsML-G2 QCode message from Misha Wolf
19:23:12 [DanC_lap]
19:23:16 [jar]
qnames *are* curies
19:23:38 [Stuart]
jar, no they aren't
19:23:58 [jar]
hmm. offline i guess
19:24:05 [Stuart]
19:25:21 [DanC_lap]
DanC: I wonder if the NewsML design process is done? can't tell.
19:25:34 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, next item
19:25:34 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, DanC_lap
19:25:51 [DanC_lap]
19:25:51 [trackbot-ng]
ACTION-99 -- David Orchard to revise the finding and publish it directly, unless he feels the need for more review before publication -- due 2008-02-14 -- CLOSED
19:25:51 [trackbot-ng]
19:26:01 [DanC_lap]
oops; that's maybe not relevant
19:26:46 [DanC_lap]
DO: I see a variety of positions; haven't finished digesting them.
19:27:28 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: Dave summarize feedback (~13 Feb) on passwords-in-the-clear draft
19:27:28 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Dave
19:27:34 [DanC_lap]
trackbot-ng, status
19:27:44 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: David summarize feedback on passwords-in-the-clear draft of 11 Feb
19:27:44 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-104 - Summarize feedback on passwords-in-the-clear draft of 11 Feb [on David Orchard - due 2008-02-28].
19:28:01 [DanC_lap]
not really due 28 Feb
19:28:04 [Stuart]
19:28:34 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close this item
19:28:34 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, DanC_lap
19:28:39 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, take up item XRI
19:28:39 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "XRI comments" taken up [from DanC_lap]
19:28:43 [Stuart]
19:28:53 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
19:28:56 [Stuart]
ack danc
19:29:08 [jar]
bye all, sorry i have to go 2 mins early
19:29:10 [DanC_lap]
is this it?
19:29:14 [noah_office]
XRI Comments list:
19:29:21 [Zakim]
19:29:56 [DanC_lap]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:17:00 +0000 / Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:04:22 -0500
19:31:59 [DanC_lap]
19:32:13 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
19:32:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate DanC_lap
19:33:32 [Zakim]
19:34:10 [Zakim]
19:34:11 [Zakim]
19:34:13 [Zakim]
19:34:14 [Zakim]
19:35:01 [Zakim]
19:43:53 [jar]
jar has joined #tagmem
19:52:16 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem