See also: IRC log
adam: there have been some responses.
<francois> Implementation report so far
adam: we need more implementation
reports from people. Most have been from Google.
... we need two for each BP
tomhume: we'll do one
DKA: already sent ours in
Jo: another one? How about
it?
... any others?
... Francois, outreach to others?
francois: not sure who to
ask.
... there are many web apps that could be used
adam: there was some called [?] who was going to do something
<EdC> What about operators like ATT and Vodafone? Could they simply ask the contributors to on-deck applications to fill in the questionnaire?
jo: what about EdC suggestion?
DKA: is a good idea. I'll follow up.
francois: what about betavine?
<jo> ACTION: Appelquist to see if on-deck apps and betavine could be a source of implementation reports [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1043 - See if on-deck apps and betavine could be a source of implementation reports [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-04-06].
francois: we are done with last
call
... there have been no non-editorial comments
<francois> Comments on Last Call
francois: Last reviewers have not replied
to our own reply but then we would be done with LC period
... we have no one working on the test suite now
... so we will probably not have a test suite for this spec
before the end of the charter
... the best option would be to publish as CR and leave it at
that for the moment.
Jo: then we should do that
... SeanP was going to work on the test suite
DKA: we could recharter just to do the test suite
jo: we should get CR as soon as
possible
... let's see what Sean says
DKA: i think our best chance is Nokia
jo: let's see what Sean says
EdC: there is a small
probability that publishing a formal CR might push other
organizations to contribute (even partially) to a test
suite.
... it might entice them
jo: it seems like the next step
anyways
... Francois, please contact previous commenters
<francois> ACTION: francois to ping previous reviewers on third last call of CT [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1044 - Ping previous reviewers on third last call of CT [on François Daoust - due 2010-04-06].
<EdC> Yes, let us move forward.
jo: next call we could ask for transition
[all agree verbally]
<jo> ACTION: JO to enact LC-2377 and LC-2377 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1045 - Enact LC-2377 and LC-2377 [on Jo Rabin - due 2010-04-06].
Jo: anything else on CT?
... AOB?
DKA: should mention informal
feedback of the TAG on CT
... we got into a confusion around sniffing....there has been a
lot of talk about this in TAG
... because it has also been coming up in IETF
... CT was discussed it became clear that CT and sniffing are
related
(scribe can't hear)
scribe: discussion came up why
203 code wasn't used.
... we didn't take it further
... I believe we didn't have discussion on this
... I was asked why we didn't ref work out of IETF
... Larry M. pointed out that this work has been going on in
IETF since our work began
... work related to CT
<francois> RFC3238
scribe: what was our view on
OPES?
... was it tangential?
Jo: no, but it wasn't actionable.
<EdC> This is the intent of RFC3238: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
<EdC> not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
<EdC> memo is unlimited."
DKA: we need to get clarification from TAG or do research about latest results on OPES.
jo: why don't you talk to Larry to get that info?
<jo> ACTION: Dan to ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
(typing is very loud)
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1046 - Ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-04-06].
Jo: please proceed with previous
plan and request transition to CR
... on 203.... it is not referred to under transform section.
Can somebody offer justification for the point of view?
... we might get some question about this not being in the
RFC
... anybody want to investigate the 203 status?
<DKA> +1 to considering it discussed
Jo: anybody?
... it's been discussed
DKA: for a resolution somebody needs to take an action to do proper research on how 203 has been used
francois: i can take an action to have an informal discussion with Yves who might have something to say on this, given his involvement in the HTTP Bis work
<jo> ACTION: francois to discuss status code 203 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1047 - Discuss status code 203 [on François Daoust - due 2010-04-06].
DKA: that would be good
jo: if we could bring these
actions in by next week, then would could ask for transition to
CR
... any more?
... closing the call
<tomhume> bye
DKA: regrets for next two weeks
<DKA> I will work towards get the result of my action sent in on email.
<DKA> ciao