17:00:29 RRSAgent has joined #social 17:00:29 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-social-irc 17:00:31 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:00:31 Zakim has joined #social 17:00:33 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:00:33 ok, trackbot 17:00:34 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:00:35 Date: 28 June 2016 17:00:37 present+ 17:01:03 present+ 17:01:06 akuckartz has joined #social 17:01:39 present+ 17:01:53 present+ 17:02:15 present+ 17:02:16 present+ 17:02:34 bengo has joined #social 17:02:42 hi 17:02:44 present+ 17:02:58 present+ 17:03:11 present+ 17:03:28 is the audio dropping periodically for anyone else? or is that my wifi? 17:03:35 scribenick: annbass 17:03:40 aaronpk, seems fine for the minute I've been in 17:03:43 calling back in.. 17:03:58 zakim, who is here? 17:03:58 Present: sandro, annbass, tantek, akuckartz, rhiaro, aaronpk, cwebber, bengo 17:04:01 On IRC I see bengo, akuckartz, Zakim, RRSAgent, KevinMarks2, annbass, tantek, jasnell_, Arnaud, jet, cwebber2, KevinMarks, ben_thatmustbeme, rrika, rhiaro, wilkie, raucao, pdurbin, 17:04:01 ... dwhly, bigbluehat, bitbear, ElijahLynn, tsyesika, Loqi, strugee, aaronpk, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot 17:04:11 chair: tantek 17:04:26 approval of minutes from F2F and last week's meeting 17:04:56 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-07-minutes 17:05:15 F2F was 6-6 and 6-7, but first day minutes were already approved 17:05:21 this vote is for 6-7 17:05:29 back 17:05:40 present+ 17:05:44 tantek clarifying when resolved to take micropub to CR 17:05:53 aaronpk: we did that last week 17:06:02 We checked the mintues but we basically just screwed up the wording of the proposal 17:06:04 that wasn't me 17:06:13 17:06:19 ugh having more audio issues. trying again. 17:06:37 tantek: any other questions or issues? 17:06:42 +1 17:06:42 +1 17:06:44 +1 17:06:44 vote to approve .. 17:06:45 +! 17:06:46 +1 17:06:50 +1 even 17:06:59 +1 17:07:09 minutes approved 17:07:45 next: minutes from 6/21 meeting... 17:07:53 (last week) 17:07:57 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-21-minutes 17:07:58 shepazu has joined #social 17:08:04 +1 17:08:11 +1 17:08:14 +1 17:08:19 +1 17:08:34 +1 17:09:12 +1 17:09:45 minutes approved 17:09:49 next: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-28#Discussion_Items 17:10:36 Topics: AS2 and Micropub transitions 17:10:43 sandro: people are slow... 17:11:04 ... I need to send transition request emails out tomorrow morning at latest 17:11:27 tantek: wou ld it help if we tracked the outstanding items? 17:11:33 sandro: not sure that'd help 17:12:23 ... no actions for group; 17:12:50 ... aaronpk, hold off on formatting if you can and please respond promptly if I ping you in next few hours 17:13:41 tantek: for the record, seeking publication date of 7/7 or 7/12 17:14:02 ... ok, the date is pending; 17:14:23 ... waiting for some info from Evan (who sent regrets for today) 17:15:07 Topic: JS2 and Post Type Discovery 17:15:19 ... short names approved and publication request approved 17:15:38 ... editors need to process HTML output into proper location 17:15:54 ... (manual process) 17:16:06 sandro: helpful if it could be done today 17:16:18 zakim, who is here? 17:16:18 Present: sandro, annbass, tantek, akuckartz, rhiaro, aaronpk, cwebber, bengo, tsyesika, ! 17:16:20 On IRC I see shepazu, bengo, akuckartz, Zakim, RRSAgent, KevinMarks2, annbass, tantek, jasnell_, Arnaud, jet, cwebber2, KevinMarks, ben_thatmustbeme, rrika, rhiaro, wilkie, raucao, 17:16:20 ... pdurbin, dwhly, bigbluehat, bitbear, ElijahLynn, tsyesika, Loqi, strugee, aaronpk, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot 17:16:22 tantek: I can do that for Post Type Discovery 17:16:40 ... is Ben Roberts (benthatmustbeme) here? 17:16:42 ... no 17:16:48 ... for JS2 17:16:55 s/JS2/jf2 17:17:03 ... let's aim for 7/30 publication date 17:17:10 can hear only, conference room is ocupied, 17:17:13 just got on 17:17:28 s/7/6 17:17:48 ... date should be 6/30 17:18:22 tantek: asking ben what needs to be done 17:18:39 okay, i have them passing tests, its just i need to finish up one minor piece 17:18:50 and yes, today I should be able to do that 17:18:57 tantek:; OK, thanks 17:19:03 present+ 17:19:07 Topic: Follow up on AS2 closed issues labelled 'waiting for commenter' 17:19:14 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Addressing_Issues#ActivityStreams_2.0 17:19:38 rhiaro gets massive kudos for contacting all commenters! 17:19:40 rhiaro++ 17:19:42 rhiaro++ 17:19:42 rhiaro has 208 karma 17:19:44 rhiaro has 209 karma 17:20:04 rhiaro: contacted everyone via email; gave them a deadline of today 17:20:24 ... bunch of no replies; those are presumed to be time-outs 17:20:46 ... dret (Erik Wilde) had one hesitation 17:20:56 ... wonders if we should give a little more time 17:21:08 sandro: technically one week left 17:21:27 rhiaro: could use help finding email address for 3 people she couldn't find 17:21:37 if only you could webmention them 17:22:04 sandro: issue 284 ... didn't actually raise the issue, KevinMarks did 17:22:06 I'll have a look 17:22:15 I copied it in 17:22:42 tantek: (clarifying) .. external comment, that KevinMarks brought into github? 17:22:46 17:23:28 17:23:37 rhiaro, annando is pretty active on github, but we can try in #friendica on freenode to see if anyone has contact info there 17:23:45 KevinMarks: I'll try to get in contact with 17:24:05 Cathal Garvey 17:24:08 @ cathalgarvey 17:24:38 hm, quitter.no is down 17:24:45 sandro: just found email for one of them .. will send to rhiaro 17:25:27 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/288 bengo 17:25:48 rhiaro: next issue .. .. jasnell and Evan aren't here today .. need their inputs 17:26:04 bengo: explains 17:26:45 (would be helpful if bengo could put a small summary in IRC) 17:26:58 tantek: sounds like an editorial fix ... true? 17:27:02 bengo: yes 17:27:29 tantek: functionality was already there, but not adequately described .. this improves understanding 17:27:35 It explicitly lists the 'id' property as being allowed on Link object in core. 17:27:48 ... asks sandro if we can make editorial fixes after CR 17:27:51 sandro: yes, we can 17:28:09 tantek: 17:29:27 ... if it's not a normative change, group can choose to make the change before CR 17:29:47 ... asks rhiaro if she has opinion / ditto Ben 17:29:52 rhiaro: don't care 17:30:27 ben_thatmustbeme: see if we can make change before CR 17:30:40 PROPOSED: Accept editorial change from bengo to AS2 in pull request https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/pull/329 pending spec editor approval with the intent of making this fix for CR. 17:30:51 :) 17:30:58 s/ben_thatmustbeme/bengo/ 17:31:02 +1 17:31:04 +1 17:31:06 +1 17:31:10 +1 17:31:11 +1 17:31:15 +1 17:31:27 bengo++ for PR 17:31:29 bengo has 16 karma 17:31:30 tantek: resolved 17:31:30 RESOLVED: Accept editorial change from bengo to AS2 in pull request https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/pull/329 pending spec editor approval with the intent of making this fix for CR. 17:31:59 rhiaro: 2 issues raised by dret (Erik Wilde) 17:32:03 ... one closed 17:32:05 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/53 17:32:17 ... the other is an editorial change, but it's significant 17:32:42 ... he notes he has not seen a good explanation of why this change shouldn't be made 17:33:02 ... but he'll approve if the group has decided not to do it 17:33:22 tantek: requires addition of non-trivial text? 17:33:42 rhiaro: yes, I might be over-thinking it, but it's about how media type is explained 17:34:09 ... would be really helpful if dret could join the call and explain more 17:34:31 sandro: given that the tight timing, and IF it is only editorial, then we could do that after CR 17:35:00 I do not think it is only editorial 17:35:12 rhiaro: I understand it's only editorial, but there are a lot of threads, so need to clarify 17:36:01 annbass: could dret propose some new language? 17:36:11 sandro: problem is, we don't have time 17:36:30 tantek: asking akuckartz for clarification 17:36:39 17:37:24 akuckartz: I think this is important, but I don't want to hold up CR process 17:37:35 i think it COULD be resolved as editorial 17:37:48 or as non-editorial 17:38:06 tantek: we can still proceed .. but, if you end up thinking this is a serious implementation issue, you can block it .. then we would resolve the issue and can work toward a new CR 17:38:14 akuckartz: that's OK with me 17:39:09 tantek: resolve per this conversation, this is OK with akuckartz and dret .. and if they decide later this is significant, we will work to resolve and issue a new CR 17:39:46 tantek: notes that any objectors can file a new issue, which we can link back to this discussion 17:39:52 fwiw, reading over the issue, it looks editorial to me. Dret doesnt want to use profile. 17:40:14 tantek: clarifying this is true for anyone and all issues .. 17:40:29 17:40:36 ( in https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/53#issuecomment-62921081 he says, ""that would be against the intention of the profile parameter) 17:40:39 Argh 17:40:59 Topic: Authentication/Authorization decisions 17:40:59 I raised it 17:41:03 tantek: we'll proceed and then get back to AS2 when rhiaro reconnects 17:41:38 we're not hearing Chris 17:42:17 tantek, agenda+ Horizontal Reviews 17:42:26 q+ 17:42:39 cwebber2: I raised this issue bcuz I was implementing ActivityPub .. realized this was a hole .. we originally said this was out-of-scope, but then I worried re: what this will really mean for implementers 17:42:55 ... various options IndieAuth or OAuth or ... 17:43:11 ... do we need more specificity? 17:43:53 s/or OAuth/as one possible way of doing OAuth2 with bearer tokens 17:44:03 q? 17:44:17 micropub uses indieauth; webmention doesn't need auth 17:44:25 q+ 17:44:46 ... I don't understand details of some of the proposed solutions; need more info; seems like a hole and not sure what to do 17:45:09 tantek: for context: last time this question was asked .. 17:45:24 scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme 17:45:56 tantek: back at f2f at MIT we came to an agreement that we would refer to oauth 2 with barer tokens and we would leave it at that 17:46:49 tantek: a reasonable summary from cwebber is that that is insufficient 17:46:53 cwebber2: thats issues 1 17:47:06 s/insufficient/insufficient to achieve interoperability 17:47:15 ... issue 2 is, for micropub we list indieauth as a SHOULD (i think) 17:47:16 q? 17:47:22 ... is that okay for the group? 17:47:24 IMO it's good for these specs to say "The Server should explain it's authorization requirements via WWW-Authenticate response header" https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6750#section-3 17:47:27 ack aaronpk 17:47:52 aaronpk: the reason that we decided oauth2 with barer tokens is acceptable is because it lets us avoid complicating these issues and these calls 17:48:07 ... in stark contrast to oauth 1 with ties requests to authentication 17:48:25 ... if you forget everything you know about oauth1, 2.0 becomes much easier 17:48:53 ... the important part is that it describes how to get a token. if both of these specs accept tokens, we don't really care how you get that token 17:49:43 ... as cwebber2 found, there are not really great solutions for that in desktop apps and hardward devices, they can still use the spec, but they just need a token in some way 17:50:02 that's helpful, thanks aaronpk 17:50:08 yep 17:50:08 q+ 17:50:18 ... there isn't a good industry standard on that, so the best way for that is to just say 'use barer tokens' and it can be anything, oath2, indieauth, etc. 17:50:33 a lot of oauth2 is documenting possible ways to get tokens 17:50:44 tantek: it sounds like, you are saying that one way to get a token is indieauth, that sounds like an informative note rather than normative 17:51:02 I think right now micropub says "SHOULD" on indieauth 17:51:05 Me too re: hardcoding/copypasting tokens 17:51:07 aaronpk: i will say that some of my implementations do not use indieauth, i just copy and paste, and thats a perfectly acceptable method 17:51:14 but I suspect it can be easily changed 17:51:22 q? 17:51:25 ack sandro 17:51:26 tantek: i think this avoids any issue of the stability of indieauth 17:51:33 https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/#authorization 17:51:55 sandro: basically i agree, at some ponit somebody will come along with a better way to do authentication (i hope) 17:52:20 sandro: will the specs need to be rewritten or not? i think the answer is not. 17:52:31 q- 17:52:33 ... its a little bit frustrating when implementing, but thats reality 17:52:43 q+ 17:52:50 tantek: it sounds like the state of the industry is messy no matter what we say 17:52:51 q? 17:52:53 ack ben_thatmustbeme 17:52:58 ack bengo 17:53:11 http://openid.net/developers/specs/ 17:53:45 bengo: as far as the state of the industry is messy, in the last year or two there has been a lot of acceptance of oauth2. they have had a lot of implementations from 17:54:09 q+ 17:54:23 q? 17:54:32 bengo, I've been looking at openid connect, I guess I got a bit overwhelmed because it looked like "layer on top of oauth 2". If you have a resource that's like "here's how to implement a bunch and *ignore* a lot of the huge set of options" would help me feel less overwhelmed :) 17:54:37 ... oauth2 barer tokens is compatable with that. saying "use barer tokens" is pretty generic, and it lets you use any string at all really 17:55:10 interesting 17:55:16 ack aaronpk 17:55:20 I'm ok with requireing a response that's informative 17:55:20 ... it could be a little more useful to have an error header to give hints on what is needed for getting that token 17:56:33 aaronpk: oauth2 does have a header response for when a request requires a token. I agree the server needs a way to say they need a token. The token is opaque, and it is good that way. its up to the server and client to negotiate that. you don't need that in the spec because thats an implementation detail 17:56:57 ... its just saying, the client willg et a string, the client should not try to interpret that string 17:57:03 q? 17:57:30 tantek: cwebber2 you originally raised this, is this enough for you to follow up? 17:58:15 cwebber2: i think so, i certainly feel like anything useful that could be said on this call has already been said and i can get more info and work on an issue for that 17:58:26 tantek: its probably good to record an issue to them to clarify 17:58:36 tantek: anything else for that item? 17:58:39 cwebber2: no 17:58:44 q? 17:58:47 topic: https://github.com/aaronpk/Micropub/issues/29 17:59:33 aaronpk: the person wants to only have a media endpoint 17:59:48 ... is this something we should do now or something we can do in CR 17:59:59 sandro: we should do it now, as its not editorial right? 18:00:08 aaronpk: it changes the conformance section 18:00:17 tantek: the request is to make it optional? 18:00:32 aaronpk: yes, make the direct uploads optional if there is a media endpoint 18:00:39 sandro: only if there is a media server 18:01:00 tantek: your options are to make it optional, or mark it at risk and dropping it in CR 18:01:15 ... have you thought about this enough to put forth a specific proposal 18:01:25 ... you can mark it optional AND at risk as well 18:01:56 aaronpk: the text that would need to change is in the conformance classes section which is .... actually now i'm not seeing that there. 18:02:12 ... shoot ... (talks to self a little) 18:02:41 sandro: technically we could wait until next week to solve this, even if we get it staged and approval, we could change it 18:03:00 ... send an email to the list as soon as you have some clarity to what you want to do here 18:03:26 tantek: even better, if you are able to follow up with a PR that the person is ok with, that makes it clear we processed the issue before CR 18:03:47 tantek: are there any at risk features in the current draft? 18:04:06 aaronpk: i don't think so, the update and delete we implemented 18:04:28 tantek: we had only one more explicity item 18:04:37 aaronpk: i just wanted to drop links in 18:04:56 sandro: you probably all saw a bunch of emails about getting replies from other groups 18:05:26 ... two groups replied saying they don't have much time, but there was a response with the security and privacy self review 18:05:41 aaronpk: there was another for internationalization 18:06:16 i remember looking over the internationalization one before, i think we discussed some time ago 18:06:36 tantek: sandro, can you make sure the issues get filed for these 18:06:50 q? 18:07:12 ... the response from the other groups was to get these questionaires filled out 18:07:35 ... they may cause changes later 18:07:54 tantek: thanks everyone, next week, usual time, chair will be evan 18:08:00 fyi I did a talk at open source bridge last week summarizing the work this group is doing 18:08:05 https://aaronparecki.com/2016/06/22/1/osbridge 18:08:12 my slides: http://slides.aaronparecki.com/2016/osbridge-w3c-socialwg 18:08:21 and video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u2Knp8P9eY 18:08:29 that'll be interesting, aaronpk, thanks 18:08:31 feel free to use the slides for your own presentations later! 18:08:43 and hopefully i accurately represented things here! 18:08:58 trackbot, end meeting 18:08:58 Zakim, list attendees 18:08:58 As of this point the attendees have been sandro, annbass, tantek, akuckartz, rhiaro, aaronpk, cwebber, bengo, tsyesika, !, ben_thatmustbeme 18:09:06 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 18:09:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-social-minutes.html trackbot 18:09:07 RRSAgent, bye 18:09:07 I see no action items