14:59:02 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-ldp-irc ←
14:59:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
14:59:06 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
14:59:06 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started ←
14:59:07 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:59:07 <trackbot> Date: 03 February 2014
14:59:24 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
14:59:50 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:00:05 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
15:00:20 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
15:00:30 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
Steve Speicher: zakim, [IBM] is me ←
15:00:30 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:00:48 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
15:00:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], ericP (muted), Arnaud, pchampin, SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see [IPcaller], ericP (muted), Arnaud, pchampin, SteveS ←
15:01:16 <Ashok> zakim, IPCaller is me
Ashok Malhotra: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
15:01:16 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok; got it ←
15:01:43 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:01:46 <Zakim> +Andrei
Zakim IRC Bot: +Andrei ←
15:02:01 <betehess> Zakim, Andrei also has Alexandre
Alexandre Bertails: Zakim, Andrei also has Alexandre ←
15:02:01 <Zakim> +Alexandre; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre; got it ←
15:04:51 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
15:04:52 <deiu> scribe: Andrei Sambra
(Scribe set to Andrei Sambra)
15:05:00 <deiu> scribenick: deiu
<deiu> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.02.03
<deiu> chair: Arnaud
15:06:02 <deiu> Arnaud: let's get started; I'm not sure we'll need 1h30
Arnaud Le Hors: let's get started; I'm not sure we'll need 1h30 ←
<deiu> topic: Admin
15:06:13 <betehess> looks ok to me
Alexandre Bertails: looks ok to me ←
15:06:27 <deiu> ... approval of minutes from Jan 27th, everyone ok with it?
... approval of minutes from Jan 27th, everyone ok with it? ←
<deiu> ... http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-01-27
... http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-01-27 ←
15:06:33 <deiu> ... no objections -> minutes approved
... no objections -> minutes approved ←
<deiu> Resolved: Minutes from Jan 27th approved
RESOLVED: Minutes from Jan 27th approved ←
15:06:41 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
15:06:52 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P4 is me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P4 is me ←
15:06:52 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
15:06:56 <deiu> ... next meeting is set for next week
... next meeting is set for next week ←
15:07:03 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me ←
15:07:03 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted ←
15:07:19 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:07:19 <deiu> ... maybe we can reduce the call length to 1h, depending on content
... maybe we can reduce the call length to 1h, depending on content ←
15:07:40 <deiu> Topic: Tracking of actions
15:07:51 <deiu> steves: Action-123 is pending review
Steve Speicher: ACTION-123 is pending review ←
15:08:05 <deiu> ... it is still open for people to review it
... it is still open for people to review it ←
<deiu> Arnaud: ok, we will close it
Arnaud Le Hors: ok, we will close it ←
15:08:25 <Zakim> +??P18
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18 ←
15:08:35 <bblfish> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
15:08:41 <deiu> Arnaud: any other actions that people can claim victory on?
Arnaud Le Hors: any other actions that people can claim victory on? ←
15:08:48 <svillata> Zakim, ??P18 is me
Serena Villata: Zakim, ??P18 is me ←
15:08:48 <Zakim> +svillata; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +svillata; got it ←
15:09:06 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
15:09:18 <deiu> Arnaud: what about Action-118?
Arnaud Le Hors: what about ACTION-118? ←
15:09:30 <JohnArwe> action-118?
15:09:30 <trackbot> action-118 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to Report to timbl: some pref for reverting to 303, 200+header still on the table, henry considering 200+location -- due 2013-12-23 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-118 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to Report to timbl: some pref for reverting to 303, 200+header still on the table, henry considering 200+location -- due 2013-12-23 -- OPEN ←
15:09:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/118
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/118 ←
15:09:43 <SteveS> I made some progress on ACTION-120, just terms and some informative stuff...maybe 45% done with it
Steve Speicher: I made some progress on ACTION-120, just terms and some informative stuff...maybe 45% done with it ←
15:09:57 <deiu> ericP: Arnauld and I are trying to figure it out. We have a variety of actions. If they get a new 2xx code, what do they say? Ok, or 209?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Arnaud and I are trying to figure it out. We have a variety of actions. If they get a new 2xx code, what do they say? Ok, or 209? ←
15:10:10 <deiu> ... we just need to figure how clients with behave
... we just need to figure how clients with behave ←
15:10:10 <betehess> s/Arnauld/Arnaud/
15:10:45 <deiu> Arnaud: the way things are going, we are not going to have the 2xx in time so we will probably revert to 303
Arnaud Le Hors: the way things are going, we are not going to have the 2xx in time so we will probably revert to 303 ←
15:11:01 <deiu> sandro: can we do 2xx later?
Sandro Hawke: can we do 2xx later? ←
15:11:13 <Zakim> + +44.754.550.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.754.550.aaaa ←
15:11:56 <deiu> ericP: now the spec says "use 2xx" and somehow involve the IETF to standardize it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: now the spec says "use 2xx" and somehow involve the IETF to standardize it ←
15:12:09 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:12:19 <stevebattle14> zakim aaaa is me
Steve Battle: zakim aaaa is me ←
15:12:28 <deiu> sandro: it may take some implementations before IETF can move on it
Sandro Hawke: it may take some implementations before IETF can move on it ←
15:12:44 <deiu> ericP: we can exploit the W3C's influence (?)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we can exploit the W3C's influence (?) ←
15:12:55 <deiu> ericP, we can just leave it there for now
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we can just leave it there for now ←
15:13:05 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:13:06 <deiu> s/ericP,/ericP:
15:13:23 <deiu> bblfish: there was a discussion going on in the W3C arch group about 2xx
Henry Story: there was a discussion going on in the W3C arch group about 2xx ←
15:13:30 <deiu> ericP: do you mean the TAG list?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: do you mean the TAG list? ←
15:13:33 <deiu> bblfish: yes
Henry Story: yes ←
15:13:43 <stevebattle14> zakim, .aaaa is me
Steve Battle: zakim, .aaaa is me ←
15:13:43 <Zakim> sorry, stevebattle14, I do not recognize a party named '.aaaa'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, stevebattle14, I do not recognize a party named '.aaaa' ←
15:13:59 <stevebattle14> zakim, aaaa is me
Steve Battle: zakim, aaaa is me ←
15:13:59 <Zakim> +stevebattle14; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stevebattle14; got it ←
15:13:59 <deiu> ericP: the person who is taking this to IETF has reviewed all of that and convinced himself of a particular course of action, so we're good there
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the person who is taking this to IETF has reviewed all of that and convinced himself of a particular course of action, so we're good there ←
<deiu> topic: ISSUE-93 - AcceptLevels
15:14:04 <deiu> issue-93?
15:14:04 <trackbot> issue-93 -- Accept and Auth -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-93 -- Accept and Auth -- raised ←
15:14:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/93
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/93 ←
15:14:17 <deiu> Arnaud: this is the last open issue we have
Arnaud Le Hors: this is the last open issue we have ←
15:14:40 <deiu> ... it has to do with the spec that doesn't mention authentication and authorization
... it has to do with the spec that doesn't mention authentication and authorization ←
15:14:55 <deiu> ... the spec requires the server to send a list of operations that the server supports
... the spec requires the server to send a list of operations that the server supports ←
15:15:28 <deiu> ... the question is: should the server do that based on the user's credentials and authorization level?
... the question is: should the server do that based on the user's credentials and authorization level? ←
15:15:40 <bblfish> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-HTTP_OPTIONS
Henry Story: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-HTTP_OPTIONS ←
15:15:56 <bblfish> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-HTTP_GET
Henry Story: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-HTTP_GET ←
15:16:03 <deiu> ... if you were to take into account that credentials is an expensive operation to do, this might be wasted time
... if you were to take into account that credentials is an expensive operation to do, this might be wasted time ←
15:16:22 <bblfish> Arnaud: it's section 5.3.2
Arnaud Le Hors: it's section 5.3.2 [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
15:16:31 <deiu> ... we have thought about removing the section from the GET, or just "soften" it to a SHOULD
... we have thought about removing the section from the GET, or just "soften" it to a SHOULD ←
15:16:43 <deiu> ... this was added in response to timbl's comments
... this was added in response to timbl's comments ←
15:17:01 <deiu> ... I am afraid that softening/removing it might change timbl's position
... I am afraid that softening/removing it might change timbl's position ←
15:17:17 <deiu> ... it could be added instead to a "best practices" document
... it could be added instead to a "best practices" document ←
15:17:29 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:17:35 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:17:59 <deiu> bblfish: I suppose the question remained a bit to the expense of calculating the level of access
Henry Story: I suppose the question remained a bit to the expense of calculating the level of access ←
15:18:20 <deiu> ... there's two types of options: Read (always the same for nearly any user when doing a GET)
... there's two types of options: Read (always the same for nearly any user when doing a GET) ←
15:18:54 <deiu> ... the argument was that it is expensive to calculate, give that it might not be useful for the client
... the argument was that it is expensive to calculate, give that it might not be useful for the client ←
15:19:16 <deiu> Arnaud: I am a bit reluctant to adding authentication in the spec (we're not talking about it anywhere)
Arnaud Le Hors: I am a bit reluctant to adding authentication in the spec (we're not talking about it anywhere) ←
15:19:34 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:19:52 <Arnaud> ack steveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveS ←
15:19:53 <deiu> ... isn't there another place where we could mention it? It might be better to avoid it and just mention that there are external factors such as authn
... isn't there another place where we could mention it? It might be better to avoid it and just mention that there are external factors such as authn ←
15:20:19 <deiu> SteveS: for some apps, the cost of computing ACL is based on other logic...so it might be just an application problem
Steve Speicher: for some apps, the cost of computing ACL is based on other logic...so it might be just an application problem ←
15:20:37 <deiu> ... there are lots of different cases that lead to complex rules
... there are lots of different cases that lead to complex rules ←
15:20:58 <deiu> ... it might be good to just put this in the best practices document
... it might be good to just put this in the best practices document ←
15:21:09 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-93 doing nothing to the spec and adding appropriate language to the best practice & guidelines doc.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-93 doing nothing to the spec and adding appropriate language to the best practice & guidelines doc. ←
15:21:15 <deiu> Arnaud: I haven't heard anything that makes me think we should change the proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: I haven't heard anything that makes me think we should change the proposal ←
15:21:22 <deiu> bblfish: wouldn't SHOULD be better?
Henry Story: wouldn't SHOULD be better? ←
15:21:41 <deiu> Arnaud: my main concern is that we made it a MUST to answer timbl's comments
Arnaud Le Hors: my main concern is that we made it a MUST to answer timbl's comments ←
15:22:12 <JohnArwe> +1
15:22:13 <deiu> ... I'm just trying to address timbl's concerns
... I'm just trying to address timbl's concerns ←
15:22:18 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:22:19 <SteveS> +1 think it is good to keep a must and provide best practices/guidance
Steve Speicher: +1 think it is good to keep a must and provide best practices/guidance ←
15:22:19 <deiu> +1
+1 ←
15:22:19 <svillata> +1
Serena Villata: +1 ←
15:22:22 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
15:22:26 <pchampin> +0
15:22:31 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:22:47 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:22:57 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-93 doing nothing to the spec and adding appropriate language to the best practice & guidelines doc.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-93 doing nothing to the spec and adding appropriate language to the best practice & guidelines doc. ←
15:23:17 <deiu> Arnaud: we have now officially closed all the issues! congrats!
Arnaud Le Hors: we have now officially closed all the issues! congrats! ←
15:23:35 <deiu> ... let's move on to the spec's status
... let's move on to the spec's status ←
15:23:43 <deiu> Topic: Spec status
15:24:00 <deiu> ... I just wanted to make sure that we stay on track as much as possible
... I just wanted to make sure that we stay on track as much as possible ←
15:24:12 <deiu> ... if you saw the list of actions, the editors have a lot of work to do
... if you saw the list of actions, the editors have a lot of work to do ←
15:24:39 <deiu> ... there is a lot of work ahead for the editors, so how do they feel about the schedule?
... there is a lot of work ahead for the editors, so how do they feel about the schedule? ←
15:24:55 <deiu> SteveS: we have 9 editor actions open
Steve Speicher: we have 9 editor actions open ←
15:25:23 <deiu> ... 2 or 3 have a big impact, so maybe by next Monday we can have some of them completed
... 2 or 3 have a big impact, so maybe by next Monday we can have some of them completed ←
15:25:57 <deiu> ... there is still the "preferred header" action that needs some more discussion
... there is still the "preferred header" action that needs some more discussion ←
15:26:17 <deiu> JohnArwe, I'm agnostic on the syntax
JohnArwe, I'm agnostic on the syntax ←
15:26:52 <deiu> Arnaud: we made a bunch of decisions to use the Preferred header, but TallTed asked "why not use URLs instead of keywords?"
Arnaud Le Hors: we made a bunch of decisions to use the Preferred header, but TallTed asked "why not use URLs instead of keywords?" ←
15:26:56 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
15:27:05 <JohnArwe> ted's email is at http://www.w3.org/mid/24D52177-A2E6-46C4-B304-D7263FA5B82B%2540openlinksw.com
John Arwe: ted's email is at http://www.w3.org/mid/24D52177-A2E6-46C4-B304-D7263FA5B82B%2540openlinksw.com ←
15:27:12 <deiu> ... there shouldn't be much argument, but I don't think this is a deeply technical issue
... there shouldn't be much argument, but I don't think this is a deeply technical issue ←
15:27:15 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:28:11 <deiu> Arnaud: let's finish with the spec status first
Arnaud Le Hors: let's finish with the spec status first ←
15:28:32 <deiu> ... we'll go back to the issue after that
... we'll go back to the issue after that ←
15:28:52 <deiu> ... the goal is to have a spec that is ready to publish and that we can give to the group for review
... the goal is to have a spec that is ready to publish and that we can give to the group for review ←
15:29:05 <deiu> ... how does everyone feel about the schedule? is that doable?
... how does everyone feel about the schedule? is that doable? ←
15:29:23 <SteveS> I can make it work
Steve Speicher: I can make it work ←
15:29:27 <deiu> ... any comments on how much time people need to review the spec?
... any comments on how much time people need to review the spec? ←
15:29:30 <betehess> 1 week to review should be fine
Alexandre Bertails: 1 week to review should be fine ←
15:29:40 <betehess> but we may have some feedback to discuss about
Alexandre Bertails: but we may have some feedback to discuss about ←
15:29:49 <deiu> Ashok: one week is ok, but then again maybe two weeks
Ashok Malhotra: one week is ok, but then again maybe two weeks ←
15:30:27 <deiu> Arnaud: I don't know if we need to reach out that far, but we still have a 3 week period when everyone can take a look and comment
Arnaud Le Hors: I don't know if we need to reach out that far, but we still have a 3 week period when everyone can take a look and comment ←
15:30:39 <deiu> ... but I'm more interested in what the group members have to say about it
... but I'm more interested in what the group members have to say about it ←
15:31:04 <deiu> ... not much reaction...
... not much reaction... ←
15:31:08 <pchampin> not sure, but 1 week should be ok
Pierre-Antoine Champin: not sure, but 1 week should be ok ←
15:31:24 <svillata> 1 week is ok
Serena Villata: 1 week is ok ←
15:31:27 <ericP> we want to optimally leverage the pain of the editors
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we want to optimally leverage the pain of the editors ←
15:31:38 <deiu> ... if we can do it in one week, that would be great. Otherwise, we could maybe have 10 days.
... if we can do it in one week, that would be great. Otherwise, we could maybe have 10 days. ←
15:31:45 <deiu> ... we can figure it out next week
... we can figure it out next week ←
15:31:58 <deiu> ... that still means that we would be done by March 3rd
... that still means that we would be done by March 3rd ←
15:32:13 <deiu> ... looking at it I see that it's pushing things a bit further
... looking at it I see that it's pushing things a bit further ←
15:32:38 <deiu> Topic: F2F meeting
15:32:59 <deiu> if the last call ends on March 24th, then we cannot meet before that
if the last call ends on March 24th, then we cannot meet before that ←
15:33:15 <deiu> ... what this tells me is that the f2f should be one week after March 24th
... what this tells me is that the f2f should be one week after March 24th ←
15:33:32 <SteveS> Conflict for me
Steve Speicher: Conflict for me ←
15:33:33 <bblfish> what is the aim of the f2f?
Henry Story: what is the aim of the f2f? ←
15:33:35 <deiu> ... is there any conflict for that period?
... is there any conflict for that period? ←
15:33:44 <deiu> ... for the 1st week of April
... for the 1st week of April ←
15:34:03 <deiu> ... we first need to decide on the date before picking the venue
... we first need to decide on the date before picking the venue ←
15:34:11 <pchampin> that's just before WWW2014, isn't it?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: that's just before WWW2014, isn't it? ←
15:34:23 <ericP> would decisions made on 1 April be binding?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: would decisions made on 1 April be binding? ←
15:35:17 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:35:17 <deiu> Arnaud: I would like to sort out the comments that we might receive during the week of 24th
Arnaud Le Hors: I would like to sort out the comments that we might receive during the week of 24th ←
15:35:22 <svillata> WWW2014 - April 7-11
Serena Villata: WWW2014 - April 7-11 ←
15:35:40 <deiu> SteveS: I have a meeting in that period and there's also the WWW2014 conf.
Steve Speicher: I have a meeting in that period and there's also the WWW2014 conf. ←
15:35:42 <nmihindu> pchampin, WWW2014 -> April 7 - 11
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: pchampin, WWW2014 -> April 7 - 11 ←
15:35:51 <ericP> co-lo with WWW?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: co-lo with WWW? ←
15:36:01 <ericP> oh, i think it's in asia, iirc
Eric Prud'hommeaux: oh, i think it's in asia, iirc ←
15:36:04 <deiu> bblfish: what is the aim of the meeting?
Henry Story: what is the aim of the meeting? ←
15:36:27 <deiu> Arnaud: to deal with any comments/issues we get out of the LC
Arnaud Le Hors: to deal with any comments/issues we get out of the LC ←
15:36:28 <bblfish> www2014 is in Korea http://www2014.kr/
Henry Story: www2014 is in Korea http://www2014.kr/ ←
15:36:49 <deiu> ... we don't know how many comments we get, so for planning purposes we should schedule ahead of time
... we don't know how many comments we get, so for planning purposes we should schedule ahead of time ←
15:37:03 <deiu> bblfish: you need at least a month for people to review and send comments/issues
Henry Story: you need at least a month for people to review and send comments/issues ←
15:37:16 <deiu> Arnaud: maybe not a month but 3 weeks
Arnaud Le Hors: maybe not a month but 3 weeks ←
15:37:28 <SteveS> I'm in Seattle April 1-3 for http://www.alm-forum.com/
Steve Speicher: I'm in Seattle April 1-3 for http://www.alm-forum.com/ ←
15:37:36 <deiu> ... we should meet after that for the f2f so we can address those issues then
... we should meet after that for the f2f so we can address those issues then ←
15:37:52 <deiu> ... it seems we have nothing before the week of April 14th
... it seems we have nothing before the week of April 14th ←
15:37:58 <Ashok> Who is going to WWW2014?
Ashok Malhotra: Who is going to WWW2014? ←
15:38:16 <deiu> ... my concern is that if it takes that long to address all the comments, it's going to further shift the schedule
... my concern is that if it takes that long to address all the comments, it's going to further shift the schedule ←
15:38:19 <SteveS> not going to WWW2014
Steve Speicher: not going to WWW2014 ←
15:38:32 <Ashok> me neither
Ashok Malhotra: me neither ←
15:38:37 <deiu> ... there is also the possibility to exit LC right away, but anyway, there isn't much choice
... there is also the possibility to exit LC right away, but anyway, there isn't much choice ←
15:39:03 <ericP> i'm stuck at home 16-17 April
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'm stuck at home 16-17 April ←
15:39:14 <deiu> Arnaud: the meeting can last for 2 days if we have no major issues; is it ok for April 15th to 17th?
Arnaud Le Hors: the meeting can last for 2 days if we have no major issues; is it ok for April 15th to 17th? ←
15:39:16 <ericP> bring it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: bring it ←
15:39:24 <SteveS> Week of April 14th could work for me
Steve Speicher: Week of April 14th could work for me ←
15:39:36 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
15:39:41 <deiu> Arnaud: we can look at it again next week
Arnaud Le Hors: we can look at it again next week ←
15:39:51 <bblfish> q-
Henry Story: q- ←
15:39:56 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
15:39:57 <deiu> ... if we have proposals for locations...
... if we have proposals for locations... ←
15:40:46 <deiu> Ashok: I'm thinking we can go with 2 days if we don't have too many comments, or extend it otherwise
Ashok Malhotra: I'm thinking we can go with 2 days if we don't have too many comments, or extend it otherwise ←
15:41:15 <deiu> ... bblfish offered to host it in Paris
... bblfish offered to host it in Paris ←
15:41:26 <ericP> paris would be just about doable for me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: paris would be just about doable for me ←
15:41:34 <deiu> bblfish: Oracle also has offices in Paris :)
Henry Story: Oracle also has offices in Paris :) ←
15:41:36 <ericP> at least a few hours/day
Eric Prud'hommeaux: at least a few hours/day ←
15:41:40 <JohnArwe> @betehess: in either Prefer proposal, we're defining something... either parameters or [forgets what other word is]. I think in the currently resolved syntax (mine), I only defined parameter names ... I don't know that we'd have the freedom to say those are interpreted as URIs; then again I don't recall anything in the RFC prohibiting doing so. If Ted's alternative involves parameter Values, we'd almost certainly
John Arwe: @betehess: in either Prefer proposal, we're defining something... either parameters or [forgets what other word is]. I think in the currently resolved syntax (mine), I only defined parameter names ... I don't know that we'd have the freedom to say those are interpreted as URIs; then again I don't recall anything in the RFC prohibiting doing so. If Ted's alternative involves parameter Values, we'd almost certainly ←
15:41:40 <JohnArwe> be able to say we have the authority to say how the values are interpreted.
John Arwe: be able to say we have the authority to say how the values are interpreted. ←
<deiu> Topic: Prefer header
15:41:50 <deiu> Arnaud: let's go back to the issue about the Preferred header
Arnaud Le Hors: let's go back to the issue about the Preferred header ←
15:41:55 <bblfish> I would like to help organise a meeting in Paris
Henry Story: I would like to help organise a meeting in Paris ←
15:42:00 <deiu> betehess: I have two questions
Alexandre Bertails: I have two questions ←
15:42:27 <deiu> ... first is about the syntax; I'm not sure what you guys mean when you speak about syntax
... first is about the syntax; I'm not sure what you guys mean when you speak about syntax ←
15:42:42 <deiu> Arnaud: it's just a way to express it in the header (how you use it)
Arnaud Le Hors: it's just a way to express it in the header (how you use it) ←
15:43:18 <deiu> JohnArwe: TallTed was wondering if we could have URIs instead of keywords
John Arwe: TallTed was wondering if we could have URIs instead of keywords ←
15:43:38 <JohnArwe> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18#section-2
John Arwe: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18#section-2 ←
15:43:40 <deiu> ... I'm not sure they can be interpreted as URIs, nor if the RFC mentions it
... I'm not sure they can be interpreted as URIs, nor if the RFC mentions it ←
15:44:23 <betehess> my take is that we shouldn't try to make it a URI just like we did for rel=type
Alexandre Bertails: my take is that we shouldn't try to make it a URI just like we did for rel=type ←
15:44:30 <deiu> ... the RFC offers different values for the production name
... the RFC offers different values for the production name ←
15:44:43 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
15:44:56 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:45:10 <deiu> betehess: I didn't understand TallTed's use case
Alexandre Bertails: I didn't understand TallTed's use case ←
15:45:26 <deiu> ... we only have a few places where we're not doing it already (i.e. rel=type header)
... we only have a few places where we're not doing it already (i.e. rel=type header) ←
15:45:34 <deiu> ... there's no URI there but we can still do a lot with it
... there's no URI there but we can still do a lot with it ←
15:46:00 <JohnArwe> In his email: All of these "ldp-*" strings could (and probably should) be
John Arwe: In his email: All of these "ldp-*" strings could (and probably should) be ←
15:46:00 <JohnArwe> replaced with URIs which return their meanings.
John Arwe: replaced with URIs which return their meanings. ←
15:46:01 <deiu> Arnaud: for humans it is nice to have URIs, as it can be clicked to get more info about it
Arnaud Le Hors: for humans it is nice to have URIs, as it can be clicked to get more info about it ←
15:46:27 <deiu> ... TallTed is not here to defend it, and no one is trying to defend his proposal
... TallTed is not here to defend it, and no one is trying to defend his proposal ←
15:46:39 <deiu> ... it shouldn't affect the spec that much if we just leave it at it for now
... it shouldn't affect the spec that much if we just leave it at it for now ←
15:46:41 <betehess> @JohnArwe, this comes at the cost of longer "keywords"
Alexandre Bertails: @JohnArwe, this comes at the cost of longer strings ←
15:46:58 <deiu> ... we'll see if TallTed considers it seriously and if he wants to defend it
... we'll see if TallTed considers it seriously and if he wants to defend it ←
15:47:08 <betehess> s/"keywords"/strings/
15:47:14 <deiu> ... is everyone OK with it?
... is everyone OK with it? ←
15:47:25 <deiu> Topic: Update on implementations
15:47:27 <JohnArwe> the biggest effect I know of on the spec would be, if we go with Ted's, we remove the "omit" preference registration and just describe the parameters we're adding to return=minimal (which already is registered by the RFC)
John Arwe: the biggest effect I know of on the spec would be, if we go with Ted's, we remove the "omit" preference registration and just describe the parameters we're adding to return=minimal (which already is registered by the RFC) ←
15:47:46 <deiu> Arnaud: there's a possibility to compress the timeline by skipping CR
Arnaud Le Hors: there's a possibility to compress the timeline by skipping CR ←
15:47:59 <deiu> ... CR was introduced to encourage people to implement the spec
... CR was introduced to encourage people to implement the spec ←
15:48:43 <deiu> ... it's a way to assure devs that the spec is stable and that it can be implemented
... it's a way to assure devs that the spec is stable and that it can be implemented ←
15:49:00 <deiu> ... we have to define an exit criteria
... we have to define an exit criteria ←
15:49:11 <deiu> ... there's a question of the test suite and harness
... there's a question of the test suite and harness ←
15:49:30 <deiu> ... it may not be possible that the test harness can test all implementations
... it may not be possible that the test harness can test all implementations ←
15:49:57 <deiu> ... I expect the exit criteria for the CR to be rather in the form of claims; people saying that they have implemented the spec
... I expect the exit criteria for the CR to be rather in the form of claims; people saying that they have implemented the spec ←
15:50:10 <sandro> q+ to ask about client libraries
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask about client libraries ←
15:50:11 <deiu> ... we need to define a minimum number of implementations
... we need to define a minimum number of implementations ←
15:50:43 <deiu> ... even with all of that, how long will people need to implement the spec, where "implement" doesn't need to reach production levels
... even with all of that, how long will people need to implement the spec, where "implement" doesn't need to reach production levels ←
15:51:22 <deiu> ... seeing that the spec is changing, it may take time for people to update their implementations/prototypes
... seeing that the spec is changing, it may take time for people to update their implementations/prototypes ←
15:51:47 <deiu> ... who can we depend on for implementations?
... who can we depend on for implementations? ←
15:51:52 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
15:51:55 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
15:51:55 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about client libraries
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask about client libraries ←
15:52:28 <deiu> sandro: I've been thinking about this a lot lately. One thing that I'd like to have is a client library that hides all the complexity of the different things the server can do
Sandro Hawke: I've been thinking about this a lot lately. One thing that I'd like to have is a client library that hides all the complexity of the different things the server can do ←
15:52:39 <deiu> ... I want to be able to traverse a container for example
... I want to be able to traverse a container for example ←
15:52:57 <ericP> sandro, GET /Container -> gives you a language-native iterator?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: sandro, GET /Container -> gives you a language-native iterator? ←
15:52:59 <deiu> ... the client should understand the different kinds of container types and membership predicates
... the client should understand the different kinds of container types and membership predicates ←
15:53:19 <deiu> ... paging too
... paging too ←
15:53:27 <SteveS> I fully intend to have simple JAX-RS+Jena server reference impl out through http://eclipse.org/lyo project, already have a start
Steve Speicher: I fully intend to have simple JAX-RS+Jena server reference impl out through http://eclipse.org/lyo project, already have a start ←
15:53:35 <deiu> ... I'd also like to see a test suite
... I'd also like to see a test suite ←
15:53:39 <SteveS> sooner than later
Steve Speicher: sooner than later ←
15:53:40 <JohnArwe> @sandro: "traversing" => membership triples, containment triples, either? or also non-member props?
John Arwe: @sandro: "traversing" => membership triples, containment triples, either? or also non-member props? ←
15:54:08 <deiu> Arnaud: test suite is important
Arnaud Le Hors: test suite is important ←
15:54:11 <nmihindu> We have an implementation (ALM iStack) which implements first LCWD (without some features such as paging) but then we stopped updating it until the spec becomes stable again with the latest changes. We will update it when we go for the second LCWD.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: We have an implementation (ALM iStack) which implements first LCWD (without some features such as paging) but then we stopped updating it until the spec becomes stable again with the latest changes. We will update it when we go for the second LCWD. ←
15:54:29 <deiu> ... also domain specific tests should be nice to have
... also domain specific tests should be nice to have ←
15:54:41 <deiu> ... there's a link to a Wiki page that lists LDP implementations
... there's a link to a Wiki page that lists LDP implementations ←
15:55:17 <deiu> ... people added references there, so these are the first things that we can look at for possible claim compliance
... people added references there, so these are the first things that we can look at for possible claim compliance ←
15:55:19 <ericP> q+ to ask if any OSLC stuff is world-visible
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask if any OSLC stuff is world-visible ←
15:55:38 <JohnArwe> @ericp: all oslc specs are world-readable
John Arwe: @ericp: all oslc specs are world-readable ←
15:55:46 <deiu> ... can the people who posted there step forward and commit to implementing the spec?
... can the people who posted there step forward and commit to implementing the spec? ←
15:55:48 <sandro> JohnArwe, either, I think. To the client, it's just a container with resources in it, to a first approximation. The client library should provide that view, given all the different ways the server might do it.
Sandro Hawke: JohnArwe, either, I think. To the client, it's just a container with resources in it, to a first approximation. The client library should provide that view, given all the different ways the server might do it. ←
15:56:03 <ericP> @JohnArwe, i mean the actual endpoints
Eric Prud'hommeaux: @JohnArwe, i mean the actual endpoints ←
15:56:08 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
15:56:08 <deiu> ... if we have 3 implementations by the end of the LC, we could possibly skip CR
... if we have 3 implementations by the end of the LC, we could possibly skip CR ←
15:56:09 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if any OSLC stuff is world-visible
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask if any OSLC stuff is world-visible ←
15:56:10 <JohnArwe> @ericp: most of the reference implementations for oslc are in Eclipse Lyo, same place Steve is doing the LDP one
John Arwe: @ericp: most of the reference implementations for oslc are in Eclipse Lyo, same place Steve is doing the LDP one ←
15:56:11 <Arnaud> ack ericP
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ericP ←
15:56:15 <SteveS> OSLC is "world visible" http://www.oasis-oslc.org/ for OASIS stuff and http://oslc.co for main site
Steve Speicher: OSLC is "world visible" http://www.oasis-oslc.org/ for OASIS stuff and http://oslc.co for main site ←
15:56:40 <deiu> ericP: I was wondering if any of those implems happen to be world visible? Do they require authn?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I was wondering if any of those implems happen to be world visible? Do they require authn? ←
15:57:02 <deiu> SteveS, OSLC is waiting for the spec to be stable
Steve Speicher: OSLC is waiting for the spec to be stable ←
15:57:18 <deiu> s/SteveS,/SteveS:
15:57:36 <deiu> sandro: can you sync that with the REC?
Sandro Hawke: can you sync that with the REC? ←
15:57:56 <deiu> SteveS: we're pushing it and we have a lot of motivation to have it implemented
Steve Speicher: we're pushing it and we have a lot of motivation to have it implemented ←
15:58:07 <deiu> ... we have internal implementations working
... we have internal implementations working ←
15:58:13 <JohnArwe> @sandro: I can imagine that your abstraction layer library would also turn "prefer" into "must" if necessary by filtering out extras. e.g. if client prefers membership only, and the server ignores preference, your lib could filter those out.
John Arwe: @sandro: I can imagine that your abstraction layer library would also turn "prefer" into "must" if necessary by filtering out extras. e.g. if client prefers membership only, and the server ignores preference, your lib could filter those out. ←
15:58:38 <JohnArwe> ...those = containment, non-member props
John Arwe: ...those = containment, non-member props ←
15:58:44 <deiu> ... we're working on it but it's difficult to provide a definite date
... we're working on it but it's difficult to provide a definite date ←
15:58:59 <nmihindu> Apache Marmotta is also waiting for the spec to become stable
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Apache Marmotta is also waiting for the spec to become stable ←
15:59:02 <deiu> Arnaud: nmihindu what about you guys? I know you've been working on it
Arnaud Le Hors: nmihindu what about you guys? I know you've been working on it ←
15:59:27 <deiu> https://rww.io is going to support it too
https://rww.io is going to support it too ←
15:59:43 <deiu> Arnaud: what about you, betehess? Can you make a claim?
Arnaud Le Hors: what about you, betehess? Can you make a claim? ←
15:59:48 <deiu> betehess: yes, definitely
Alexandre Bertails: yes, definitely ←
16:00:08 <deiu> Arnaud: it looks like we might have enough implementations
Arnaud Le Hors: it looks like we might have enough implementations ←
16:00:23 <betehess> good question from Sandro, as I already know that I won't implement _everything_
Alexandre Bertails: good question from Sandro, as I already know that I won't implement _everything_ ←
16:00:27 <deiu> sandro: we need every feature to implemented...
Sandro Hawke: we need every feature to implemented... ←
16:00:38 <deiu> ... is everyone going to implement all features?
... is everyone going to implement all features? ←
16:01:10 <JohnArwe> I think our intent in Lyo is to implement all features
John Arwe: I think our intent in Lyo is to implement all features ←
16:01:15 <deiu> Arnaud: we might not have 3 implementations that support all features, but we can have all features spread between the 3 implementations
Arnaud Le Hors: we might not have 3 implementations that support all features, but we can have all features spread between the 3 implementations ←
16:01:38 <nmihindu> sandro, it might be nice to add a another row to the implementations wiki to say which features that they plan to implement
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: sandro, it might be nice to add a another row to the implementations wiki to say which features that they plan to implement ←
16:01:58 <deiu> ... we should avoid getting stuck in CR
... we should avoid getting stuck in CR ←
16:02:27 <deiu> ... there are specs that have been stuck in CR for a long time, so let's try to avoid it
... there are specs that have been stuck in CR for a long time, so let's try to avoid it ←
16:02:44 <deiu> sandro: that has happened before, but they didn't have a product to showcase
Sandro Hawke: that has happened before, but they didn't have a product to showcase ←
16:02:54 <JohnArwe> can we use the LC2 review period to get the next level of detail from implementers? what they Intend to implement, even if that's not in-product?
John Arwe: can we use the LC2 review period to get the next level of detail from implementers? what they Intend to implement, even if that's not in-product? ←
16:02:55 <deiu> ... it's nice to have a validation of the spec
... it's nice to have a validation of the spec ←
16:03:13 <deiu> ... if people outside IBM won't implement it, then it isn't a good sign
... if people outside IBM won't implement it, then it isn't a good sign ←
16:03:24 <deiu> Arnaud: ok, let's move on
Arnaud Le Hors: ok, let's move on ←
16:03:46 <deiu> ... there are deliverables listed in the quick action list
... there are deliverables listed in the quick action list ←
16:04:09 <deiu> ... this is a way to remind people that we'll need to work on the deliverables
... this is a way to remind people that we'll need to work on the deliverables ←
16:04:37 <deiu> ... since the charter expires in June, and we've pretty much closed all issues, we should try to focus on deliverables and finish them by the end of May
... since the charter expires in June, and we've pretty much closed all issues, we should try to focus on deliverables and finish them by the end of May ←
16:04:40 <stevebattle14> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
16:04:45 <deiu> ... any activity reports on them so far?
... any activity reports on them so far? ←
16:04:49 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle14
Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle14 ←
16:05:11 <deiu> stevebattle14: quick update on the use case and req: I've put the spec status as WD
Steve Battle: quick update on the use case and req: I've put the spec status as WD ←
16:05:38 <deiu> ... we should use WG-notes as a solution to not have it be listed as REC
... we should use WG-notes as a solution to not have it be listed as REC ←
16:05:46 <betehess> the problem was in the text in the spec
Alexandre Bertails: the problem was in the text in the spec ←
16:06:06 <deiu> Arnaud: is the use cases and req document published as notes?
Arnaud Le Hors: is the use cases and req document published as notes? ←
16:06:20 <deiu> sandro: yes, that's a WG notes document
Sandro Hawke: yes, that's a WG notes document ←
16:06:25 <nmihindu> LDP Primer update - We didn't include the latest changes that we discussed in the primer. When the spec becomes stable with all the resolutions incorporated, so probably next week, we will start working on the primer and modify the examples accordingly. We might be need a bit of restructuring to fit in basic containers, direct containers, and indirect containers better.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: LDP Primer update - We didn't include the latest changes that we discussed in the primer. When the spec becomes stable with all the resolutions incorporated, so probably next week, we will start working on the primer and modify the examples accordingly. We might be need a bit of restructuring to fit in basic containers, direct containers, and indirect containers better. ←
16:06:49 <deiu> Arnaud: I saw an email mentioning that there was a problem with the status of the document
Arnaud Le Hors: I saw an email mentioning that there was a problem with the status of the document ←
16:07:00 <SteveS> I know the test suite is out-of-sync with the section renumbering of the latest editor's draft
Steve Speicher: I know the test suite is out-of-sync with the section renumbering of the latest editor's draft ←
16:07:04 <deiu> ... we can figure out the right way to publish
... we can figure out the right way to publish ←
16:07:18 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
16:07:44 <deiu> sandro: non-normative should be used instead of non-formative
Sandro Hawke: non-normative should be used instead of informative ←
16:07:47 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle14
Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle14 ←
16:07:58 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle ←
16:08:04 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
16:08:16 <sandro> s/non-formative/informative/
16:08:20 <Arnaud> :)
Arnaud Le Hors: :) ←
16:08:23 <nmihindu> SteveS, raul was waiting for the spec and numbering to be stable to update the test suite
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: SteveS, raul was waiting for the spec and numbering to be stable to update the test suite ←
16:08:30 <deiu> betehess: now the editors need to use the right headers in the document
Alexandre Bertails: now the editors need to use the right headers in the document ←
16:08:31 <ericP> can we use "informative" and "non-informative"?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: can we use "informative" and "non-informative"? ←
16:08:49 <stevebattle14> will do
Steve Battle: will do ←
16:08:53 <ericP> where "non-informative" is the opaque stuff that no one ever reads?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: where "non-informative" is the opaque stuff that no one ever reads? ←
16:08:53 <deiu> ... we can just change the metadata in the database and make sure it's ok in the next published version
... we can just change the metadata in the database and make sure it's ok in the next published version ←
16:08:54 <Zakim> -Ashok
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok ←
16:08:55 <SteveS> nmihindu, understand...just sharing that with the WG
Steve Speicher: nmihindu, understand...just sharing that with the WG ←
16:08:56 <betehess> ericP, ask ian
Alexandre Bertails: ericP, ask ian ←
16:09:01 <deiu> Arnaud: we can sort that out, it's ok
Arnaud Le Hors: we can sort that out, it's ok ←
16:09:12 <JohnArwe> @sandro: for those Outside spec writing circles, "informative" (as a positive, avoiding the initial negative non-) has been more readily understood amongst my devs.
John Arwe: @sandro: for those Outside spec writing circles, "informative" (as a positive, avoiding the initial negative non-) has been more readily understood amongst my devs. ←
16:09:13 <deiu> ... I would like to close the meeting at this point
... I would like to close the meeting at this point ←
16:09:19 <stevebattle14> We will set specStatus='WG-NOTE'
Steve Battle: We will set specStatus='WG-NOTE' ←
16:09:19 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
16:09:19 <deiu> ... anything else?
... anything else? ←
<deiu> topic: Template for RFC
16:09:47 <deiu> ericP: is there a template RFC we can use for 2xx?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: is there a template RFC we can use for 2xx? ←
16:10:03 <deiu> ... just in terms of the structure
... just in terms of the structure ←
16:10:21 <deiu> ... "here is a short RFC that defines the new status codes in terms of two existing status codes"
... "here is a short RFC that defines the new status codes in terms of two existing status codes" ←
16:10:28 <deiu> ... it should have the references at least
... it should have the references at least ←
16:10:53 <deiu> JohnArwe: we can instantiate the template for our use
John Arwe: we can instantiate the template for our use ←
16:11:23 <deiu> ... I'm looking at it right now, if you're still around in IRC after the meeting
... I'm looking at it right now, if you're still around in IRC after the meeting ←
16:11:34 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
16:11:45 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
16:12:05 <deiu> SteveS: I wasn't sure if something that you need is commented out in the spec, since we had 209 commented out there
Steve Speicher: I wasn't sure if something that you need is commented out in the spec, since we had 209 commented out there ←
16:12:27 <deiu> ericP: my preference is to do this in plain text, RFC-like format
Eric Prud'hommeaux: my preference is to do this in plain text, RFC-like format ←
16:13:03 <deiu> ... we might actually end up uncommenting 209 from the spec, if we promise that we'll write an RFC for it
... we might actually end up uncommenting 209 from the spec, if we promise that we'll write an RFC for it ←
16:13:38 <deiu> JohnArwe: you can put it in informational RFC
John Arwe: you can put it in informational RFC ←
16:13:46 <deiu> ... it's non-normative
... it's non-normative ←
16:14:23 <pchampin> @ericP how about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585
Pierre-Antoine Champin: @ericP how about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585 ←
16:14:27 <deiu> sandro: why not use a W3C note instead?
Sandro Hawke: why not use a W3C note instead? ←
16:14:44 <deiu> ... never mind, the 2xx should be an RFC
... never mind, the 2xx should be an RFC ←
16:15:04 <JohnArwe> @ericp: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25#section-8.2.3
John Arwe: @ericp: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25#section-8.2.3 ←
16:15:06 <deiu> ericP: we will do less work if we start with an RFC (if it progresses reasonably)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we will do less work if we start with an RFC (if it progresses reasonably) ←
16:15:29 <JohnArwe> which will make your LAO, then cry a bit
John Arwe: which will make your LAO, then cry a bit ←
16:15:39 <deiu> Arnaud: we can now close the meeting
Arnaud Le Hors: we can now close the meeting ←
16:15:51 <betehess> bye!
Alexandre Bertails: bye! ←
16:15:52 <stevebattle14> bye
Steve Battle: bye ←
16:15:57 <Zakim> -Andrei
Zakim IRC Bot: -Andrei ←
16:15:58 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
16:15:58 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
16:16:00 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:16:00 <Zakim> -svillata
Zakim IRC Bot: -svillata ←
16:16:02 <Zakim> -nmihindu
Zakim IRC Bot: -nmihindu ←
16:16:02 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:16:06 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:16:07 <Zakim> -stevebattle14
Zakim IRC Bot: -stevebattle14 ←
16:16:45 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
16:16:56 <JohnArwe> @ericp: you might use the Accept-Post draft shell as a wrapper, since that's what you're really after. erikw emails on LDP list have ptr to it.
John Arwe: @ericp: you might use the Accept-Post draft shell as a wrapper, since that's what you're really after. erikw emails on LDP list have ptr to it. ←
16:17:14 <bblfish> betehess: are you implementing the code with Spray?
Alexandre Bertails: are you implementing the code with Spray? [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
16:17:35 <ericP> JohnArwe, roger -- tx
Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, roger -- tx ←
16:19:44 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, end meeting ←
16:19:44 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
16:19:44 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ericP, Arnaud, pchampin, SteveS, Ashok, Sandro, Andrei, Alexandre, JohnArwe, nmihindu, bblfish, svillata, +44.754.550.aaaa, stevebattle14
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been ericP, Arnaud, pchampin, SteveS, Ashok, Sandro, Andrei, Alexandre, JohnArwe, nmihindu, bblfish, svillata, +44.754.550.aaaa, stevebattle14 ←
16:19:52 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
16:19:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-ldp-minutes.html trackbot ←
16:19:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
16:19:53 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
Formatted by CommonScribe