IRC log of social on 2017-04-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:02:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
15:02:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:02:55 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:02:55 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
15:02:57 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
15:02:57 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
15:02:58 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
15:02:58 [trackbot]
Date: 04 April 2017
15:03:29 [aaronpk]
15:03:29 [eprodrom]
All right
15:03:33 [eprodrom]
15:03:59 [julien]
15:04:20 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has changed the topic to: Next telcon: IRC logs:
15:04:25 [rhiaro]
15:04:25 [Loqi]
rhiaro: tantek left you a message 1 week, 3 days ago: what's the right thing to do here? got created despite explicitly inviting the proposer and anyone else to join SWICG to participate in such topics:
15:04:28 [rhiaro]
My connection is a bit flaky
15:04:51 [sandro]
15:05:28 [rhiaro]
Sure I can
15:05:41 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
15:05:44 [julien]
Thanks Amy!
15:05:53 [rhiaro]
though if my connectino drops, someone be backup
15:07:02 [sandro]
evan: Is there a problem with quorum?
15:07:35 [sandro]
sandro: I think we're okay, as long as we open the floor for objections via email afterwords
15:07:37 [rhiaro]
Topic: WebSub
15:07:49 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Advancing WebSub to CR
15:08:13 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: We've addressed all the issues and closed them
15:08:23 [rhiaro]
... One not yet closed but most of the content was spun out into other issues so I don't think there's anything left there
15:08:25 [aaronpk]
15:08:25 [rhiaro]
... 84
15:08:36 [rhiaro]
... Pretty sure everything in there got turned into new issues and addressed
15:08:43 [rhiaro]
... But I didn't want to just close it
15:08:55 [rhiaro]
sandro: I read over it this morning and it seems clear to me that we addressed it elsewhere
15:09:00 [rhiaro]
... The content moved elsewhere
15:09:17 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: If that's the case then maybe I can ask the group to agree to close it saying all the content has been spun out?
15:09:28 [rhiaro]
... And then hopefully the originator won't be upset about that
15:09:31 [rhiaro]
sandro: yep
15:09:49 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: close issue #84 since all relevant points have been addressed in separate issues
15:09:53 [eprodrom]
15:10:00 [aaronpk]
15:10:05 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
15:10:16 [julien]
15:10:20 [sandro]
15:10:32 [sandro]
Zakim, who is here?
15:10:32 [Zakim]
Present: aaronpk, eprodrom, julien, rhiaro
15:10:34 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, julien, eprodrom, timbl, dtluna, ben_thatmustbeme, Loqi, wilkie, jet, lambadalambda, rhiaro, aaronpk, bigbluehat, KjetilK, bitbear, dwhly, csarven, mattl,
15:10:34 [Zakim]
... raucao, wseltzer, trackbot, sandro
15:10:51 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: close issue #84 since all relevant points have been addressed in separate issues
15:10:57 [sandro]
15:12:21 [sandro]
15:12:44 [rhiaro]
My irc dropped on laptop but I'm scrbing offline btw
15:14:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:18:54 [sandro]
15:19:07 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I reviewed the list of references and reviewed the list. Some incorrectly marked as normative. We were also referencing the URL spec and referenced HTML for the query string, so I switched that up. Fixed on ED.
15:19:07 [rhiaro]
sandro: One of the things in transition is making sure all the normative references point to thinks that are suitably stable. People often forget.
15:19:07 [rhiaro]
... What's the stable part of ??
15:19:08 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: We reference it just to say what utf-8 is.
15:19:08 [rhiaro]
sandro: we can change that reference if the director has a problem with it.
15:19:09 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
15:19:09 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: RFCs are always okay right?
15:19:12 [rhiaro]
sandro: I think so
15:19:14 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: They're stable..
15:19:16 [rhiaro]
sandro: 2616 is obsoleted right?
15:19:18 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I went through this with webmention..
15:19:20 [rhiaro]
sandro: It's obsoleted by a bunch so you need to figure out which one
15:19:23 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I can do that
15:19:25 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: 2616 is conneg. I think i'ts not even worth referencing that. I'm going to delete that. It's just saying it's possible, not to follow it.
15:19:27 [rhiaro]
sandro: I think that's okay
15:19:29 [rhiaro]
sandro: Capability URLs? could we swithc that to informative?
15:19:31 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: Callback URL should be capability URL... SHOULD is normative right?
15:19:34 [rhiaro]
sandro: *long sigh*
15:19:36 [rhiaro]
... some controversy there.
15:19:38 [rhiaro]
... Looks like a dead working draft.
15:19:40 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: Hmm. All it's really saying is use a really long token in the URL.
15:19:42 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: that's probably more informative
15:19:45 [rhiaro]
sandro: yeah I think we can say that
15:19:47 [rhiaro]
aaropk: We're saying 'capabilitiy URL as a shorthand' for those things that are unguessable with sufficient randomness, so we didn't have to spec what that meant?
15:19:49 [rhiaro]
sandro: I think just changing that to be
15:19:51 [rhiaro]
... we could rephrase it as "an unguessable URL, see capbability URL.."
15:19:53 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: We can say it's a unique unguessable URL
15:19:56 [rhiaro]
sandro: Let's say that. Then just have the link to capability URLs
15:19:58 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: That way it's informative
15:20:00 [rhiaro]
sandro: the danger is that if the capability URL spec changed to add some weird requirement that didn't make sense for websub they would break websub. So as long as we say what we mean and that just helps explain it we're safe. we don't want to delegate it entirely to something not promised to be stable.
15:20:02 [rhiaro]
... I think that's good for the references
15:20:35 [tantek]
15:20:36 [tantek]
scribenick: tantek
15:20:37 [tantek]
sandro: abstract seems a bit out of date
15:20:42 [eprodrom]
scribenick: eprodrom
15:20:43 [rhiaro]
"WebSub provides a common mechanism for communication between publishers of any kind of Web content, and their subscribers. Subscription requests are relayed through hubs, which validate and verify the request. Hubs then distribute new and updated content to subscribers when it becomes available. WebSub was previously known as PubSubHubbub."
15:20:51 [tantek]
aaronpk: sounds like we are trying to solve a problem that is no longer a problem
15:20:53 [eprodrom]
scribenick: tantek
15:21:01 [julien]
I like it
15:21:10 [tantek]
sandro: rhiaro has written a new abstract
15:21:13 [julien]
I would just adds that it's based on HTTP
15:21:15 [tantek]
aaronpk: that's great, I'll paste that in
15:21:19 [julien]
and maybe mention webhooks
15:21:20 [rhiaro]
15:21:24 [tantek]
aaronpk: replace the whole thing?
15:21:26 [tantek]
sandro: yes
15:21:41 [tantek]
julien: I would mention HTTP in the abstract also
15:21:51 [tantek]
julien: as maybe webhooks because this is a pattern a lot of people know about
15:22:01 [tantek]
sandro: maybe in the first sentence
15:22:04 [sandro]
sandro: first sentence, "... based on http webhooks"
15:22:06 [tantek]
julien: that would be perfect
15:22:18 [tantek]
aaronpk: I got it
15:22:36 [tantek]
sandro: moving along through the transition request. changes...
15:22:46 [tantek]
sandro: I'm fuzzy at what changes at PR are supposed to be
15:22:58 [tantek]
sandro: it is supposed to be changes since widely reviewed version
15:23:12 [tantek]
sandro: could we have changes since versions of pubsubhubbub?
15:23:32 [tantek]
sandro: if I was coming to this since reviewing PuSH I would want to see changes since that
15:23:40 [tantek]
aaronpk: FPWD was essentially PuSH 0.4
15:23:48 [tantek]
sandro: can we note that in the change long
15:24:18 [tantek]
tantek: sounds like what we did with AS with a Changes since AS1 summary section
15:24:30 [tantek]
aaronpk: maybe a section on changes since PuSH 0.4
15:24:47 [tantek]
aaronpk: and then note that no changes since PuSH 0.4 and FPWD
15:24:55 [tantek]
sandro: as a user I want a short list of normative changes
15:25:14 [tantek]
sandro: if I had old code, I would want to know
15:25:33 [tantek]
aaronpk: there may be changes that require more security
15:25:41 [tantek]
aaronpk: but it will still work
15:26:00 [tantek]
sandro: is it safe to say that we expect all previous conforming implementations to be interoperable with this?
15:26:06 [tantek]
julien: not all versions of PuSH 0.4
15:26:12 [tantek]
15:26:20 [tantek]
julien: v0.4 probably. v0.3 probably not
15:26:32 [tantek]
sandro: does the spec for 0.4 say what needs to change since 0.3?
15:26:44 [tantek]
julien: the spec doesn't have it. I wrote it on the mailing list at the time
15:26:59 [tantek]
sandro: I just added to the transition request
15:27:04 [tantek]
sandro: reload to see the changes section
15:27:15 [tantek]
aaronpk: should I add something to the document to that effect?
15:27:20 [tantek]
sandro: probably?
15:27:28 [tantek]
sandro: it's hard without knowing how well we met that goal
15:27:38 [tantek]
sandro: until we go through CR
15:27:48 [tantek]
sandro: later on we can tell how true that turned out to be
15:27:58 [tantek]
sandro: maybe I'll add during CRs testing phase we will gather feedback
15:28:07 [tantek]
sandro: ... on how well this goal was met
15:28:15 [tantek]
sandro: ... how completely
15:29:02 [tantek]
tantek: could we offer intent? fixing spec vs fixing impls if we find breaks during CR?
15:29:28 [tantek]
sandro: we don't really know.
15:29:33 [tantek]
sandro: the real technical question here is, is there any change we've made that you're worried about might say make us not interoperable with ...
15:29:45 [tantek]
sandro: for example there's a google hub running, I would hope we remain interop with them?
15:29:58 [tantek]
julien: I'm not sure google hub still runs, or is completely compliant with 0.4
15:30:09 [tantek]
julien: the capability URLs are good example of this
15:30:17 [tantek]
julien: it wouldn't break interop
15:30:34 [tantek]
aaronpk: another example of a change that might break things is the new stricter requirement for matching content-types
15:30:46 [tantek]
aaronpk: that was something probably happening before
15:30:59 [tantek]
sandro: common cases we would expect to work the same
15:31:05 [tantek]
tantek: is it worth marking at risk
15:31:09 [tantek]
aaronpk: I don't think so
15:31:13 [tantek]
julien: I don't think so either
15:31:55 [tantek]
tantek: the point of at risk is not to say we would drop it, but rather that if we did not find 2+ implementations that support it, that we would consider dropping it
15:32:00 [tantek]
julien: we really should keep it
15:32:02 [tantek]
aaronpk: agreed
15:32:07 [tantek]
sandro: I'm inclined to agree
15:32:14 [tantek]
sandro: anything else we would want to mark at risk?
15:32:46 [tantek]
tantek: marking it at risk gives us the option of droping it without going to another CR
15:32:57 [tantek]
tantek: that is, we can make that change and still go directly to PR
15:33:31 [tantek]
sandro: is there anybody that might be attached to the link tags being in the body?
15:34:03 [tantek]
aaronpk: we said for HTML, link tags must be in the head
15:34:09 [tantek]
julien: I don't think anyone would be attached to it
15:34:37 [tantek]
julien: we might have people who are attached to it who are hosting their platforms where they do not have control over http headers like github
15:34:48 [tantek]
julien: it is theoretical, I haven't seen anyone in particular
15:35:00 [tantek]
aaronpk: it seems like HTML only allows link tags in the head element
15:35:40 [tantek]
15:35:45 [tantek]
15:35:57 [aaronpk]
15:36:19 [tantek]
aaronpk: from what I can tell, link element must be used in the html head element
15:36:32 [tantek]
ben_thatmustbeme: that question is do you want the spec to still work even with non-conforming HTML
15:37:02 [tantek]
sandro: the link element is allowed in the body for certain contexts
15:37:20 [sandro]
15:37:26 [tantek]
sandro: something about RDFa and/or, something
15:37:31 [aaronpk]
15:37:36 [tantek]
aaronpk: this is regarding an issue I brought up
15:37:55 [tantek]
aaronpk: the concern is it would be possible to have someone inject a link tag into the body of the page that would hijack subscriptions
15:38:03 [tantek]
aaronpk: limiting it to the head is a security precaution
15:38:12 [aaronpk]
s/I brought up/I just dug up/
15:38:26 [tantek]
sandro: why don't we mark this at risk in case we get harsh feedback during CR
15:38:32 [tantek]
aaronpk: that seems reasonable
15:38:36 [tantek]
julien: I'm ok with that
15:38:43 [tantek]
sandro: let's do a proposal
15:38:56 [sandro]
PROPOSAL: Mark the change "Only allow <link> tags in the HTML <head> element" as At Risk for CR
15:39:02 [julien]
15:39:05 [tantek]
15:39:05 [sandro]
15:39:12 [rhiaro]
15:39:16 [aaronpk]
15:39:29 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Mark the change "Only allow <link> tags in the HTML <head> element" as At Risk for CR
15:39:53 [sandro]
tantek: Mark it inline, AND in SOTD
15:40:04 [sandro]
tantek: see example in other specs
15:40:27 [tantek]
tantek: two ways, one mark it inline with the feature, and two in a summary of At Risk items section as part of the status section
15:40:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:40:32 [eprodrom]
15:41:12 [tantek]
sandro: we already have host meta discovery at risk
15:41:22 [tantek]
aaronpk: I'm going to do what CSS does
15:41:31 [tantek]
aaronpk: which is a section inside the SOTD called "At Risk"
15:41:48 [tantek]
sandro: sounds good. almost like tantek was familiar with what CSS does :)
15:42:18 [tantek]
sandro: these others it's hard to see how someone would disagree with them
15:43:01 [tantek]
tantek: it sounds like there are some at-risk items we expect to drop, vs others we don't expect to drop but are just unsure
15:43:06 [tantek]
sandro: where are we with host meta?
15:43:13 [tantek]
aaronpk: if there are no impls let's drop
15:43:21 [tantek]
sandro: it sounds like we'll probably drop host meta
15:43:30 [tantek]
eprodrom: statusnet does host meta
15:43:40 [tantek]
eprodrom: but it will fall back to other techniques too
15:44:25 [tantek]
tantek: if we want to drop it, we should drop it from the CR version
15:44:35 [tantek]
eprodrom: should we have a motion to drop it from the CR version
15:44:39 [aaronpk]
15:44:46 [tantek]
sandro: I'm a little worried because there are some people that like it
15:44:55 [tantek]
julien: it was previously in the spec
15:45:00 [tantek]
julien: people might have implemented it
15:45:07 [tantek]
sandro: let's not drop it yet
15:45:16 [tantek]
sandro: is it an optional thing?
15:45:26 [tantek]
aaronpk: it's a negotiation between publishers and subscribers
15:45:32 [tantek]
aaronpk: subscribers would have to check
15:45:49 [tantek]
sandro: that means we're not going to...
15:45:59 [tantek]
sandro: we're going to gather implementation experience with the test suite
15:46:26 [tantek]
sandro: it is likely we'll have some folks that implement it because of tests
15:46:31 [tantek]
tantek: is it must?
15:46:46 [tantek]
aaronpk: for subscribers it is a must
15:46:54 [tantek]
aaronpk: otherwise they won't find some publishers
15:47:00 [tantek]
tantek: theoretical?
15:47:01 [tantek]
aaronpk: yes
15:47:11 [tantek]
aaronpk: for publishers, it is the third recommended option, as a should
15:47:23 [rhiaro]
the test suite can indicate what's at risk so people who hate it can be happy to fail that test and see it removed? Or we only care about the results of the publisher tests for this?
15:47:43 [tantek]
aaronpk: for subscribers, first check link header, then http body (XML payload or head of html page), then host meta
15:48:11 [tantek]
aaronpk: it is entirely possible that publishers all advertise via http header or body, in which case clients will never hit 3rd case
15:48:27 [tantek]
sandro: we should keep it for now
15:48:47 [tantek]
tantek: do we know of any implementations that require it?
15:48:59 [tantek]
aaronpk: this would be are there any publishers that only advertise via host meta?
15:49:04 [tantek]
eprodrom: we don't know
15:49:28 [tantek]
julien: we don't know
15:49:29 [tantek]
sandro: I wouldn't use that as a publisher unless we knew most of the clients support that
15:50:01 [tantek]
tantek: it sounds like we should include a note in the spec and/or the test suite accordingly
15:50:07 [sandro]
+1 test system indicating what's At Risk
15:50:10 [tantek]
tantek: and include what rhiaro wrote in IRC
15:51:22 [tantek]
sandro: particular in the at-risk language in description of host meta we should have an issue
15:51:26 [tantek]
sandro: so people can weigh-in
15:52:25 [tantek]
tantek: could we also add a note that the WG knows of no publishers that depend on host-meta, that they offer discovery in other ways
15:52:44 [tantek]
eprodrom: I think we should leave it at risk at move on
15:52:50 [tantek]
eprodrom: what else do we need to do for CR
15:53:02 [tantek]
sandro: have we satisfied our requirements
15:53:13 [tantek]
sandro: what I've written is that no analysis was done
15:53:15 [rhiaro]
We have like the user stories which has a subscription requirement
15:53:37 [tantek]
eprodrom: it is fair to say that part of our charter is to create a Federation protocol, and that PubSubHubbub was one of the inputs to tthat
15:53:42 [tantek]
15:53:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
was our only requirement to "standardize pubsubhubbub and not break current implementations"
15:53:56 [rhiaro]
15:53:57 [tantek]
aaronpk: we have all the user stories which have subscription requirement
15:54:14 [tantek]
eprodrom: apologies pubsubhubbub was not one of the charter inputs
15:54:22 [tantek]
sandro: I'll figure out what the right thing to say is
15:54:47 [rhiaro]
I did that I think with ..
15:54:51 [tantek]
sandro: going through the user stories and connecting this seems like quite a bit of work
15:55:08 [tantek]
sandro: I'll add the sentence that this functional area is in the charter
15:55:37 [tantek]
tantek: sandro did you see rhiaro's document?
15:55:37 [rhiaro]
that's on the wiki somewhere too, sorry all my things are lagging
15:55:45 [tantek]
sandro: I'm looking
15:55:54 [rhiaro]
15:56:01 [tantek]
sandro: oh ok
15:56:09 [tantek]
sandro: I will link to that
15:56:14 [tantek]
sandro: what I was saying is ...
15:56:16 [rhiaro]
sandro, link to the wiki
15:56:50 [tantek]
sandro: we have 49 satisifed
15:56:52 [rhiaro]
sandro, I just labelled them
15:57:06 [rhiaro]
It seemed disingenuous to mark Rob's as satisfied, as he just closed it saying he won't implement
15:57:12 [tantek]
tantek: rhiaro says she just labeled them
15:57:19 [tantek]
sandro: we have 50 ...
15:57:27 [tantek]
aaronpk: aha
15:57:36 [tantek]
sandro: is there a way to increase the page size on an issue list?
15:57:47 [tantek]
sandro: magic ampersand pagesize is 100
15:58:15 [rhiaro]
I don't think it affects anything wrt what the director would say about progressing
15:58:30 [tantek]
sandro: something weird going on where I'm not seeing ... oh I see
15:58:48 [tantek]
sandro: there's an isopen that ended up in my link URL
15:59:28 [tantek]
sandro: the timeout link comes up with no URLs, just two closed, they don't show up unless I click on them
15:59:29 [tantek]
sandro: I need to add the isclosed
15:59:30 [tantek]
sandro: we have two closed
15:59:34 [tantek]
sandro: one closed not satisfied
15:59:40 [tantek]
sandro: from azeroth
15:59:51 [tantek]
sandro: and that gets us to 52
15:59:57 [tantek]
sandro: when there are 57
16:00:05 [tantek]
sandro: still 5 missing but we can nail those down after the call
16:00:14 [tantek]
sandro: I think we're in good shape for the transition request
16:00:23 [tantek]
sandro: short of deciding we are ready, Evan?
16:00:25 [tantek]
eprodrom: that sounds good
16:00:26 [julien]
16:00:36 [tantek]
eprodrom: are we ready for a motion to move WebSub to CR?
16:00:40 [tantek]
eprodrom: I think we are
16:00:41 [julien]
16:00:58 [aaronpk]
I just pushed a new ED with the at risk features
16:01:02 [tantek]
eprodrom: I'd like PROPOSE: Recommend moving WebSub to Candidate Recommendation
16:01:08 [tantek]
eprodrom: we have a couple of editorial changes from today
16:01:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
recommend or request?
16:01:09 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: recommend moving Websub to Candidate Recommendation
16:01:14 [tantek]
aaronpk: I think they're actually all done already
16:01:19 [tantek]
16:01:21 [sandro]
+1 (With changed approved in this meeting)
16:01:26 [julien]
16:01:26 [tantek]
16:01:27 [julien]
16:01:31 [rhiaro]
16:01:33 [eprodrom]
16:01:38 [ben_thatmustbeme]
16:01:44 [aaronpk]
16:01:56 [tantek]
eprodrom: if that is the case I think we are resolved
16:01:58 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: recommend moving Websub to Candidate Recommendation
16:02:02 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
16:02:02 [RRSAgent]
16:02:10 [tantek]
sandro: excellent
16:02:15 [julien]
16:02:25 [tantek]
eprodrom: that would mean we ...
16:02:32 [tantek]
eprodrom: we limited the agenda to the WebSub CR
16:02:43 [tantek]
eprodrom: we scheduled 2 hours but we got this done in an hour
16:02:52 [tantek]
eprodrom: unless objections, I'd like to close up the call
16:02:55 [tantek]
sandro: sounds good
16:02:57 [tantek]
(no objection)
16:03:00 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
16:03:00 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:03:00 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, eprodrom, julien, rhiaro, sandro, ben_thatmustbeme, tantek, !
16:03:03 [tantek]
eprodrom: thank everyone
16:03:08 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:03:09 [rhiaro]
16:03:09 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:03:09 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
16:03:11 [tantek]
eprodrom: congrats on a job well done