15:02:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
15:02:05 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/25-social-irc
15:02:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:02:07 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
15:02:07 <cwebber> it's about that time right?
15:02:09 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
15:02:09 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:02:10 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
15:02:10 <trackbot> Date: 25 April 2017
15:02:47 <tantek> cwebber: yes it is
15:02:55 <tantek> present+
15:02:55 <csarven> meeting now??.. did i get my tz wrong?
15:03:02 <csarven> I thought it'll be in an hour
15:03:12 <aaronpk> present+
15:03:14 <tantek> csarven: yes now
15:03:17 <ajordan> present+
15:03:19 <csarven> okie dokie
15:03:19 <ajordan> probably
15:03:51 <tantek> present+ eprodrom
15:04:03 <tantek> Zakim, who is here?
15:04:03 <Zakim> Present: tantek, aaronpk, ajordan, eprodrom
15:04:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, tantek, elensil, timbl, dmitriz, ajordan, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, dwhly, bitbear, rhiaro, csarven, wseltzer, raucao, sandro, cwebber, Loqi, jet,
15:04:05 <Zakim> ... lambadalambda, aaronpk, bigbluehat, mattl, trackbot
15:04:12 <cwebber> present+
15:04:17 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+
15:04:21 <csarven> present+
15:04:36 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-04-25
15:04:52 <cwebber> I can scribe
15:04:54 <tantek> chair: tantek
15:04:59 <rhiaro> present+
15:05:04 <tantek> scribenick: cwebber
15:05:23 <sandro> present+
15:05:30 <sandro> Zakim, who is here?
15:05:30 <Zakim> Present: tantek, aaronpk, ajordan, eprodrom, cwebber, ben_thatmustbeme, csarven, rhiaro, sandro
15:05:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, tantek, elensil, timbl, dmitriz, ajordan, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, dwhly, bitbear, rhiaro, csarven, wseltzer, raucao, sandro, cwebber, Loqi, jet,
15:05:33 <Zakim> ... lambadalambda, aaronpk, bigbluehat, mattl, trackbot
15:05:35 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-04-18-minutes
15:05:39 <cwebber> tantek: let's get started with first item, which is to review minutes from last week, had a brief telcon to discuss activitypub issues
15:05:51 <cwebber> tantek: let's see what the rest of the folks who were here, see if the minutes are good
15:05:52 <dmitriz> present+
15:06:23 <ben_thatmustbeme> needs to remove the DRAFT header and we usually remove the footer stuff too
15:06:33 <cwebber> /me would it be safe to do PROPOSED now?
15:06:33 <cwebber> 
15:06:51 <aaronpk> i can do that
15:06:59 <sandro> PROPOSED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-04-18-minutes
15:07:01 <sandro> +1
15:07:06 <cwebber> +1
15:07:08 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
15:07:16 <aaronpk> +1
15:07:31 <ajordan> +1
15:08:05 <ben_thatmustbeme> majority of those that were there are here
15:08:11 <rhiaro> +1
15:08:34 <cwebber> TOPIC: next telecon
15:08:54 <cwebber> tantek: with excepttion of last week we've done them every other week, that would place next telecon on May 9th
15:09:05 <cwebber> tantek: how does that sound for folks?
15:09:11 <rhiaro> I won't be here but y'all can carry on without me
15:09:26 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
15:09:39 <csarven> +1
15:09:42 <cwebber> evan: I think it makes sense
15:09:54 <cwebber> sandro: I'd propose doing every week
15:10:23 <cwebber> evan: could we do half hour every week instead of an hour?
15:10:34 <cwebber> sandro: I don't think we've been wasting time in meetings
15:10:47 <cwebber> evan: I'm happy to do a full hour I just don't want to take up more of peoples' time than we need
15:10:52 <rhiaro> we can always finish early if it happens..
15:11:01 <cwebber> evan: and we are down to one to two specs at this point
15:11:11 <cwebber> sandro: we only need the people who are there
15:11:19 <cwebber> sandro: maybe we can wait till the end of this meeting and see how we're doing
15:11:38 <cwebber> tantek: I'll offer my opinion, the key thing I think is to actually have progress on the things we've made progress on
15:11:48 <cwebber> tantek: if we don't have a test suite that's ready, a meeting is not going to change that
15:11:59 <cwebber> tantek: so that's why I have my doubts about meeting every week
15:12:12 <ajordan> gotta drop out, forgot I had something else right now. sorry!
15:12:13 <cwebber> tantek: I'd like to allow people to have their time to focus
15:12:14 <ajordan> present-
15:12:24 <cwebber> tantek: maybe I should ask chris and aaron
15:12:38 <cwebber> tantek: do you think it'll be done in 2 weeks?  or will it be done in a week?
15:12:53 <cwebber> aaronpk: I don't think I can guarantee having it done in a week... two weeks yeah
15:13:17 <sandro> cwebber: Probably two weeks for the test suite, realistically, probably.
15:13:28 <sandro> q?
15:13:44 <sandro> q+
15:14:08 <cwebber> evan: we also need to get implementations done, 2 weeks sounds right
15:14:19 <cwebber> sandro: if I remember right last week we decided to do breaking changes on ActivityPub
15:14:33 <cwebber> sandro: and the absolute final deadline for doing breaking changes is 3 weeks from now
15:14:52 <cwebber> sandro: so there's a lot of deadline pressure
15:15:04 <cwebber> sandro: maybe we're not doing any more deadline pressure
15:15:20 <cwebber> tantek: let's at least put up the we need to do in two weeks or three weeks
15:15:33 <cwebber> sandro: if there are any open issues in AP, we should do it next week
15:15:37 <cwebber> tantek: why not in two weeks
15:15:43 <cwebber> sandro: in theory we could do it in two weeks
15:15:53 <cwebber> sandro: in a four hour meeting in two weeks?  some of these take a while
15:16:23 <cwebber> tantek: here's the other side of that... if we're seeing a rate of normative substantiative issues come in, then it might make more sense to give chris and others more time to wrap them up
15:16:32 <cwebber> tantek: that was going to be the second question I was going toa sk
15:16:33 <cwebber> *ask
15:16:38 <rhiaro> We're using a lot of meeting time talking about scheduling meetings.
15:16:43 <cwebber> tantek: if we have a high rate of substantiative meeting
15:16:44 <sandro> *23* open issues need to be closed
15:16:59 <cwebber> tantek: not all these issues need to be discussed in the telcon
15:17:10 <cwebber> tantek: if editors and people who raised them can resolve them, we can quickly knock them out
15:17:14 <rhiaro> q+
15:17:23 <tantek> ack sandro
15:17:50 <cwebber> rhiaro: in the interest of this meeting to use this week to do things, can we agree to do a meeting next week and see if we need it
15:17:57 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1 to schedule it and can always cancel
15:17:59 <cwebber> tantek: you're right, let's do a straw poll to see
15:18:10 <cwebber> tantek: just enter into irc
15:18:19 <rhiaro> +1 all the weeks
15:18:24 <cwebber> cwebber: I'd prefer a meeting next week
15:18:38 <sandro> +1 to long meetings for the next three weeks, until all issues are dealt with
15:18:40 <cwebber> cwebber: all weeks :)
15:18:45 <aaronpk> i don't mind every week in general, but i can't make next week's call
15:19:24 <csarven> +1 sandro said.. in the interest of minimising risk. show up for those that need to get their stuff moving.
15:19:33 <ben_thatmustbeme> do we want to schedule it as an activitypub meeting next week then?
15:20:01 <rhiaro> i also think i'ts useful to have more than just core spec people in the meetings for better consensus making, but we can't force people to show up..
15:20:11 <rhiaro> perspectives etc
15:20:36 <cwebber> RESOLVED: will hold meetings on may 2nd and may 9th
15:20:49 <csarven> Same bat channel
15:20:52 <cwebber> tantek: please try to resolve issues outside of the call on github
15:20:57 <cwebber> tantek: quick PR update status
15:21:03 <sandro> but PLEASE try to keep time available after call so we can go long.
15:21:09 <cwebber> tantek: we do have PRs for AS2 and MicroPub (congrats)
15:21:14 <cwebber> tantek: any calls for changes or objections?
15:21:46 <cwebber> rhiaro: we have mostly positive comments (?)
15:21:58 <cwebber> tantek: we have until may 11th for people to review the PRs
15:22:06 <cwebber> rhiaro: so that goes to the last one which is WebSub
15:22:16 <cwebber> tantek: oh ok, can you give us a summary of the end date
15:22:56 <cwebber> sandro: AP and WebSub don't have deadlines there because thye haven't gone to PR yet
15:23:06 <cwebber> sandro: from the perspective of this, it's only the PR that gives us a deadline
15:23:22 <sandro> (this = W3C AC Review)
15:23:25 <cwebber> tantek: last I looked at it I saw a bunch of positive votes saying they like LDN, want to give it their support
15:23:39 <cwebber> tantek: last I saw we could use a few more AC reps voting on AS2 and MicroPub
15:23:49 <cwebber> tantek: so if you know member organizations, reach out
15:23:59 <cwebber> tantek: encourage them to at least say hey, this is a good idea, make this recommendation
15:24:06 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList List of W3C companies and their representatives
15:24:06 <cwebber> tantek: they have till May 11th, so
15:24:15 <eprodrom> eprodrom has joined #social
15:24:16 <cwebber> tantek: so that's something everyone can do
15:24:24 <cwebber> tantek: that'e enough on that...
15:24:29 <cwebber> TOPIC: Websub
15:24:48 <cwebber> tantek: any comments from the AC on websub and activity[streams]?
15:25:02 <cwebber> tantek: it didn't sound like it, but figured I'd explicitly ask
15:25:11 <cwebber> tantek: I assume rhiaro is muted or checking
15:25:21 <cwebber> rhiaro: no explicit comments
15:25:30 <cwebber> tantek: we'll assume if they are they're filing them in github, etc
15:25:39 <cwebber> TOPIC: Social Web Protocols
15:25:48 <cwebber> tantek: there's been revisions, suggesting publishing new version
15:25:56 <cwebber> rhiaro: need to pull up changelog
15:26:22 <cwebber> rhiaro: so I brought all of the websub stuff up to date
15:26:32 <cwebber> rhiaro: I'd appreciate it if aaron, etc did so
15:26:36 <cwebber> rhiaro: looked at it
15:26:37 <rhiaro> http://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/#change-log
15:26:41 <cwebber> rhiaro: I also tidied it up a bit
15:27:01 <cwebber> tantek: aaronpk, julian, did you look at it recently?
15:27:14 <cwebber> aaronpk: I have reviewed it recently but not specifically for websub, I can go through that
15:27:16 <cwebber> tantek: ok
15:27:32 <aaronpk> micropub status PR, this still says CR
15:27:38 <cwebber> tantek: let's give you a few minutes to do that; we'll come back to social web protocols
15:27:45 <cwebber> tantek: we'll give a few minutes to do that
15:27:47 <aaronpk> https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/#swwg-specs
15:27:57 <cwebber> tantek: I don't have any updates on post type discovery, we'll skip for this week
15:28:00 <tantek> zakim, who is here?
15:28:00 <Zakim> Present: tantek, aaronpk, eprodrom, cwebber, ben_thatmustbeme, csarven, rhiaro, sandro, dmitriz
15:28:02 <cwebber> tantek: we don't have julian on the phone do we?
15:28:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see eprodrom, Zakim, RRSAgent, tantek, elensil, timbl, dmitriz, ajordan, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, dwhly, bitbear, rhiaro, csarven, wseltzer, raucao, sandro,
15:28:02 <Zakim> ... cwebber, Loqi, jet, lambadalambda, aaronpk, bigbluehat, mattl, trackbot
15:28:05 <cwebber> tantek: no, ok
15:28:15 <cwebber> tantek: chris is minuting and has to do AP ;)
15:28:16 <rhiaro> I can
15:28:18 <rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
15:28:50 <rhiaro> tantek: Walk us through the issues. Important ones first
15:29:09 <rhiaro> cwebber: I've been focussing on the test suite
15:29:22 <cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/203
15:29:23 <Loqi> [jaywink] #203 Linked Data Signatures + public key URI
15:29:29 <rhiaro> ... this one I'm not going to address what he said, but will discuss in the abstract
15:29:47 <rhiaro> ... this is something that there's a lot of stuf fhappening in this area, and actula convergence between linked data signatures and jose stuff
15:29:57 <rhiaro> ... so that seems useful to capture becuase I know we keep getting asked about how to handle signatures
15:30:05 <rhiaro> ... it's non normative
15:30:18 <rhiaro> ... one concern I have is people want us to address it in the spec, which means we'd need it in the test suite
15:30:21 <rhiaro> ... worried this will use a lot of time
15:30:38 <sandro> q+
15:30:45 <eprodrom> q+
15:30:48 <tantek> ack rhiaro
15:31:00 <rhiaro> ... This is something I"ve been thinking about. I have some concerns.. we already knew the auth stuff was not going to be a permanent recommendation by the end of the group but i feel like this may be one of the things that needs to be updated as fast as possible
15:31:02 <rhiaro> q-
15:31:11 <rhiaro> tantek: sounds like a process question
15:31:17 <tantek> ack sandro
15:31:52 <rhiaro> sandro: seems like the best we can do is claim this is a feature that's orthogonal to AP. The way people do auth  may change over time. Over here is where you see guidence about what people seem to be currently doing
15:32:02 <rhiaro> ... 'over here' can be managed by the CG, on a wiki page or something
15:32:14 <rhiaro> ... that can reflect our bes tunderstanding of what people are doing in practice based on implementation reports and changes over time
15:32:22 <rhiaro> ... if next year something better comes along, it doesn't change AP at all
15:32:32 <rhiaro> ... we just try to give people advoice, or point them to a place to help them find out what is going on
15:32:33 <cwebber> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#actors
15:32:36 <rhiaro> cwebber: that makes sense
15:32:41 <rhiaro> ... this is in the spec currently, the endpoints section
15:32:47 <rhiaro> ... we got the oauth stuff wrong, we're missing an endpoint
15:32:52 <rhiaro> ... but we do provide endpoints for some of these things
15:33:00 <rhiaro> ... one possible option is to move the auth endpoint stuff to an extension
15:33:05 <rhiaro> ... a wiki page seems like a bad idea
15:33:21 <rhiaro> ... I'm wondering whether we should leave this in the normative part of the spec of giving these endpoints. On the other hand, people need them
15:33:29 <rhiaro> ... But as you said i tmight not be necessarily correct for the future
15:33:36 <rhiaro> ... Should we include those endpoints actually in there?
15:33:43 <rhiaro> ... or is there a better place?
15:34:06 <rhiaro> eprodrom: if we're not sure how we're gonna use them I don't see a good reason to include them in the spec
15:34:16 <rhiaro> ... that doesn't seem like we should be throwing things into the spec that we're not actually using
15:34:34 <rhiaro> ... I agree with sandro. I think there is a big advantage to keeping those specs simple without auth being part of it
15:34:47 <rhiaro> ... There are two different kinds of auth that would be required, c2s and s2s, both important
15:35:00 <rhiaro> ... and part of the problem with combining the c2s and s2s in one spec is that we did complicate that a bit
15:35:12 <rhiaro> ... is there a way we could just kick it over to say oauth?
15:35:14 <tantek> q?
15:35:17 <tantek> ack eprodrom
15:35:21 <rhiaro> ... use oauth2 discovery and there you go?
15:35:34 <rhiaro> tantek: I completely agree with what Evan just said
15:35:37 <rhiaro> ... specifically the endpoint question
15:35:51 <rhiaro> ... we should only include an endpoint if we are going to define precisely the implementaiton behaviour for that endpoint
15:35:57 <rhiaro> ... both for the person with the endpoint and the person discovering it
15:36:19 <rhiaro> ... kicking this to an extension or an example spec, ie wiki page or github
15:36:56 <rhiaro> ... if there's some part of a spec where we don't have the precise method defined, we should modularise that out of the spec
15:37:02 <rhiaro> ... saying that as me not as chair
15:37:07 <rhiaro> cwebber: I have a suggestion on how to handle this
15:37:23 <tantek> q?
15:37:35 <rhiaro> ... two sections that reference this. The actor endpoints part. Sounds like there's rough consensus that we shouldn't be defining those cos we'll possibly get them wrong and we can handle that in the CG or external to the AP as this spec process
15:37:50 <cwebber> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#authorization
15:37:52 <rhiaro> ... there's also a whole auth section
15:37:56 <rhiaro> ... I could just keep that there but dilute it heavily
15:38:06 <rhiaro> ... refer to the kind of directions that are possible, and very vaguely say how they might be used
15:38:11 <rhiaro> ... how do people feel about that?
15:38:21 <tantek> q?
15:38:21 <rhiaro> ... removing the endpoints and referring to the possible directions but saying to look elsewhere?
15:38:41 <rhiaro> sandro: why not cut a little more than that, and just say this is out of scope, here's some places you might look for how to do it?
15:38:44 <rhiaro> cwebber: that's what I mean
15:39:01 <rhiaro> ... we could remove it as a whole header.. currently it's a whole section. We could jjust move it to the security considerations section just pointing at the things
15:39:10 <rhiaro> tantek: I like the general approach
15:39:40 <rhiaro> ... How did micropub address this issue in terms of keeping the auth bits orthogonal? I don't quite remember
15:39:54 <rhiaro> ... is there some way to reuse similar text to indicate that it's something that's defined elsewhere?
15:40:05 <rhiaro> ... and point to a couple of specific approaches informally as what other implementaitons are looking at
15:40:18 <rhiaro> aaronpk: one, micropub does explicitly say that bearer tokens are used for authentication
15:40:33 <rhiaro> ... that avoids having to have multiple different options. What it doesnt' say is how you get the access token, because that's outside of the scope of micropub
15:40:36 <rhiaro> ... that cleans that up
15:41:04 <rhiaro> ... where micropub and activitypub differ is that AP is also a server to server protocol, which means there's untrusted content going between the two, so a bearer token may not be the best approach for that
15:41:14 <rhiaro> ... this doesn't apply for micropub because we're not using it to federate between servers
15:41:55 <rhiaro> tantek: I have this vague recollection of resolving to use bearer tokens in both? we can reconsider. What do you think of using th emicropub approach for the client to server piece of AP?
15:42:10 <rhiaro> cwebber: we could reuse it, it's a lot more normative in micropub that it currently is in activitypub
15:42:26 <rhiaro> ... in micropub it's much more specifically baked in there
15:42:42 <rhiaro> ... we could try to bake in bearer tokens for c2s, but that doens't sovle the question people are asking the most which is about s2s
15:42:49 <rhiaro> ... we might patch over a part of it, but we're leaving  just a big of a gap anyway
15:43:09 <rhiaro> ... at that poing i'd like to encourage the bearer token usage and describe how it's done in the more diluted security considerations section that we're talking about
15:43:10 <eprodrom> q+
15:43:13 <tantek> q?
15:43:27 <rhiaro> ... but I think since the spec does say you have to... we can probabyl borrow some of it and pull it inot the non-normative section that we're talkinga bout here. Would that make sense?
15:43:32 <rhiaro> tantek: what do you think is right for AP?
15:43:54 <tantek> ack eprodrom
15:43:55 <rhiaro> cwebber: I think that removing the endpoints, have the watered down portion in the security considerations section, and borrowing some of micropub's terminology about how to use bearer tokens is probably the best way forward
15:44:15 <rhiaro> eprodrom: cwebber, could we instead of taking this call, could we go over how pump.io does this process before we make this decision, and see if that's something we could translate into AP?
15:44:33 <rhiaro> ... pump.io started 4 yeares ago, uses early versions of oauth2 discovery, but the concepts are still the same
15:44:44 <rhiaro> ... should be possible to point out simply to use oauth 2 discovery or openid connect discovery to make this work
15:44:47 <rhiaro> ... and that should be sufficient
15:44:51 <rhiaro> ... but we'd need to step through it
15:45:08 <rhiaro> ... the other thing is saying 'it may be possible to use these for c2s, along with other auth systems'
15:45:20 <rhiaro> cwebber: we can talk, do you immediatley after this call want to follow up?
15:45:31 <rhiaro> eprodrom: stay on irc
15:45:58 <rhiaro> tantek: important issue, time well spent
15:46:13 <rhiaro> ... sounded like we were close to consensus from teh group's perspective
15:46:21 <rhiaro> ... eprodrom, would you have any objection to resolving what chris said
15:46:47 <rhiaro> ... remove the endpoints, move the watered down portion of auth to the non-normative security considerations section, and borrow some of micropub's terminology about how to use bearer tokens, with details left up to editor
15:46:53 <rhiaro> ... that's the rough proposal
15:47:23 <rhiaro> eprodrom: I'd like to more carefully walk through the possibilities for pointing out the features we could use at each stage of the server to server and client to server before we just punt on it
15:47:28 <rhiaro> ... i feel like this will take more work
15:47:46 <rhiaro> tantek: I'll leave it to the two of you to follow up in the issue
15:48:05 <rhiaro> ... hopefully you'll resolve it in a way the commenter agrees to, or if we need to explicitly approve a proposal we can do that next week
15:48:08 <rhiaro> ... but we're not resolving it now
15:48:24 <rhiaro> eprodrom: aaronpk, if you're not in a rush at the end of the call if you could stay on with us to discuss that would be helpful
15:48:44 <rhiaro> TOPIC: SWP again
15:48:48 <cwebber> scribenick: cwebber
15:49:05 <cwebber> aaronpk: I have two issuses open on it, and I do think they should be addressed before publishing
15:49:20 <rhiaro> q+
15:49:28 <cwebber> tantek: those are new issues, so instead of discussing them in realtime, I'd like rhiaro to look at them
15:49:35 <tantek> ack rhiaro
15:49:42 <cwebber> tantek: would you be okay with delaying a decision to public next week
15:49:57 <cwebber> rhiaro: would publishing with these issues be enough to keep a version from november up
15:50:08 <cwebber> rhiaro: would you object with these issues aaronpk
15:50:33 <cwebber> aaronpk: I guess I'd be willing to publish even with these issues
15:50:44 <cwebber> PROPOSED: publish an update to Social Web Protocol with current draft
15:51:03 <cwebber> tantek: one issue is to note the issues inline, or we could try to do another draft next week
15:51:10 <cwebber> aaronpk: let's just do another draft
15:51:13 <cwebber> cwebber: +1
15:51:17 <aaronpk> +1
15:51:17 <rhiaro> +1
15:51:18 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
15:51:20 <wilkie> +1
15:51:22 <csarven> +1
15:51:24 <eprodrom> +1
15:51:31 <sandro> +1
15:51:33 <cwebber> RESOLVED: publish an update to Social Web Protocol with current draft
15:51:48 <cwebber> tantek: appreciate the update rhiaro, and let's do more rapid updates too
15:51:53 <cwebber> TOPIC: websub
15:52:01 <cwebber> tantek: where are we at with normative issues aaronpk ?
15:52:07 <cwebber> aaronpk: I believe we haven't had any issues come in
15:52:21 <cwebber> tantek: as in terms of group decision issues, do you have any editorial issues that require republishing?
15:52:40 <cwebber> aaronpk: one thing that came up two weeks ago, I'm trying to remember if this needs any editing of the text, just gimme a sec
15:52:42 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/98
15:52:43 <Loqi> [kevinmarks] #98 Subscription migration is unclear
15:52:53 <cwebber> tantek: basically is the editor's draft disparate from the CR
15:53:01 <cwebber> aaronpk: I don't think there's any difference in the ED right now
15:53:11 <cwebber> aaronpk: just trying to remember if this issue requires any editorial changes
15:53:17 <cwebber> aaronpk: I remember it doesn't have any functional changes
15:53:27 <cwebber> tantek: could you give us an update on the test suite
15:53:36 <cwebber> aaronpk: no test suite yet, will work on it in the next 2 weeks
15:53:45 <aaronpk> s/no test suite/no updates on the test suite/
15:53:45 <cwebber> tantek: ok in the issue of moving forward, we're done with websub issues this week
15:53:56 <cwebber> tantek: I think we can re-address this next week with whether to update with CR updates
15:54:02 <cwebber> tantek: that brings us back to AP
15:54:17 <rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
15:54:43 <cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/196
15:54:44 <Loqi> [annando] #196 How to differentiate between posts and private (direct) messages?
15:54:47 <rhiaro> cwebber: this is a big ... there's been this whole thread about whether to differentiate between posts and direct messages basically
15:55:08 <rhiaro> ... there has been discussion, but not clear progress since last week
15:55:22 <rhiaro> ... sandro what's your current understanding?
15:55:43 <rhiaro> sandro: *remembering*
15:56:01 <rhiaro> ... I think I clarified what the issue was and then other people said what the solutions were... but I'm still confused about them
15:56:14 <rhiaro> tantek: sounds like we need a specific proposal
15:56:17 <cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/204
15:56:17 <Loqi> [donpdonp] #204 activitypub profile discovery
15:56:18 <rhiaro> cwebber: this one is shorter, 204
15:56:46 <rhiaro> ... what it sounds like is he wants some sort of way to use a rel link from html to what would be their activitypub profile in activitystreams
15:57:09 <rhiaro> ... I'm not really sure.. the usual way we have this described is that probalby someone's homepage uses content negotiation to grab the activitystreams equivalent of what that page is
15:57:30 <rhiaro> ... we could add rel links to a page but that opens up the question of whether we should also add text to the page about whether you have to do further discovery
15:57:34 <rhiaro> ... feels like it would make it more complicated
15:57:57 <eprodrom> +q
15:57:58 <rhiaro> ... I'm not against having a way to jump from someone' shomepage to their AP profile, but I'm hesitant about having an alternate way for somebody to have their profile linked in addressing or something like that
15:58:08 <rhiaro> ... but I also have not done the most amount of things with rel links of people in this group
15:58:19 <rhiaro> tantek: I think the same reasonsing we used for the security endpoint discovery applies here
15:58:27 <rhiaro> ... if we're not going to have it well defined, we probably should not be adding it
15:58:31 <rhiaro> ... could be done in an extension
15:58:33 <tantek> q?
15:58:34 <tantek> ack eprodrom
15:59:07 <rhiaro> eprodrom: chris, this rel="alternate" is a fine way to do it, I think you should respond and say it's a common way
15:59:18 <rhiaro> ... but that it's usually conneg
15:59:22 <rhiaro> cwebber: do we add something to the spec?
15:59:24 <rhiaro> eprodrom: no
15:59:25 <rhiaro> q+
15:59:39 <tantek> ack rhiaro
16:00:15 <rhiaro> http://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/#content-representation
16:00:42 <rhiaro> "To make content available as ActivityStreams 2.0 JSON, one could do so directly when requested with an appropriate Accept header (eg. application/activity+json or application/ld+json), or indirectly via a rel="alternate" type="application/activity+json" link . This link could be to a different domain, for third-party services which dynamically generate ActivityStreams 2.0 JSON on behalf of a publisher."
16:01:31 <cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/blob/gh-pages/activitypub-tutorial.txt
16:01:36 <rhiaro> cwebber: No more normative issues
16:01:42 <tantek> \o/
16:01:42 <cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/blob/gh-pages/activitypub-tutorial.txt
16:01:43 <rhiaro> ... Last week I linked this tutorial with ascii art
16:01:49 <sandro> +1 amazing graphics !
16:01:53 <rhiaro> ... somebody provided amazing vector graphics to replace the ascii art
16:02:05 <rhiaro> ... I'm thinking of putting the tutorial with those graphics at the top of AP as a short introduction to all the concepts
16:02:33 <rhiaro> tantek: this is an editorial change as far as I'm concerned
16:02:37 <rhiaro> cwebber: right
16:02:48 <eprodrom> q?
16:02:50 <rhiaro> tantek: up to rhiaro and sandro to deal with contributor agreement stuff
16:03:06 <rhiaro> cwebber: they just need to indicate that it's okay to be the same copyright
16:03:18 <rhiaro> tantek: congrats with 0 normative issues!
16:03:56 <rhiaro> ... goal to publish new cr next week
16:03:59 <rhiaro> ... Any other items?
16:04:05 <tantek> q?
16:04:33 <rhiaro> ... See you next week, great work
16:04:38 <cwebber> o/
16:04:44 <eprodrom> cwebber, aaronpk : let's stay on the channel
16:04:47 <aaronpk> cwebber: eprodrom: I will brb, need to make another coffee
16:04:48 <tantek> cwebber++ for minuting!
16:04:48 <Loqi> cwebber has 7 karma
16:04:50 <aaronpk> give me like 3 minutes
16:04:53 <tantek> rhiaro++ for minuting
16:04:53 <Loqi> rhiaro has 139 karma in this channel (255 overall)
16:05:01 <wilkie> cwebber++
16:05:01 <Loqi> cwebber has 8 karma
16:05:02 <eprodrom> I'd like to walk through the flows that we might need to execute to get some basic tasks done
16:05:08 <cwebber> eprodrom, sounds good
16:05:09 <wilkie> rhiaro++
16:05:09 <Loqi> slow down!
16:05:12 <tantek> trackbot, end meeting
16:05:12 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:05:12 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been tantek, aaronpk, ajordan, eprodrom, cwebber, ben_thatmustbeme, csarven, rhiaro, sandro, dmitriz
16:05:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:05:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/25-social-minutes.html trackbot
16:05:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:05:21 <RRSAgent> I see no action items