IRC log of waf on 2008-01-16
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:01:27 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #waf
- 20:01:27 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/16-waf-irc
- 20:01:28 [Zakim]
- ok, tlr; the call is being made
- 20:01:30 [Zakim]
- +[Mozilla]
- 20:02:04 [tlr]
- zakim, call thomas-781
- 20:02:04 [Zakim]
- ok, tlr; the call is being made
- 20:02:06 [Zakim]
- +Anne_van_Kesteren
- 20:02:08 [Zakim]
- +Thomas
- 20:02:09 [Zakim]
- + +1.781.993.aaaa
- 20:02:18 [ArtB]
- zakim, aaaa is ArtB
- 20:02:18 [Zakim]
- +ArtB; got it
- 20:02:25 [anne]
- Zakim, Anne is me
- 20:02:25 [Zakim]
- +anne; got it
- 20:02:27 [dorchard]
- dorchard has joined #waf
- 20:02:37 [anne]
- Zakim, who is here?
- 20:02:37 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see [Mozilla], anne, ArtB, Thomas
- 20:02:38 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see dorchard, RRSAgent, Zakim, ArtB, tlr, Lachy, Mike^mail, heycam, shepazu, anne, Hixie, trackbot-ng, mikko
- 20:02:42 [sicking]
- sicking has joined #waf
- 20:02:43 [Zakim]
- +DOrchard
- 20:02:49 [shepazu]
- Zakim, call Doug-work
- 20:02:49 [Zakim]
- ok, shepazu; the call is being made
- 20:02:51 [Zakim]
- +Doug
- 20:03:08 [sicking]
- Zakim, who is on call
- 20:03:08 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is on call', sicking
- 20:03:28 [ArtB]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2008Jan/0018.html
- 20:03:38 [sicking]
- Zakim, callers
- 20:03:38 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'callers', sicking
- 20:03:50 [ArtB]
- Meeting: WAF WG Voice Conf on Access Control Spec
- 20:03:52 [Zakim]
- +??P11
- 20:03:55 [ArtB]
- Date: 16 January 2008
- 20:04:00 [Mike^mail]
- Zakim, ??P1 is me
- 20:04:00 [Zakim]
- +Mike^mail; got it
- 20:04:13 [sicking]
- Zakim, mozilla is me
- 20:04:13 [Zakim]
- +sicking; got it
- 20:04:36 [ArtB]
- Present: Art, Anne, Thomas, Jonas, Doug, Mike, David
- 20:04:45 [ArtB]
- Regrets: Arve, Caludio
- 20:04:51 [anne]
- Zakim, noise?
- 20:04:51 [Zakim]
- I don't understand your question, anne.
- 20:05:08 [anne]
- Zakim, who is making noise?
- 20:05:18 [Zakim]
- anne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ArtB (79%), Thomas (5%)
- 20:05:26 [tlr]
- zakim, I am thomas
- 20:05:26 [Zakim]
- ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
- 20:05:27 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:05:27 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 20:05:40 [Zakim]
- -ArtB
- 20:05:55 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:05:55 [Zakim]
- Thomas should no longer be muted
- 20:06:01 [anne]
- Zakim, who is making noise?
- 20:06:05 [Zakim]
- +ArtB
- 20:06:11 [Zakim]
- anne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Thomas (25%)
- 20:06:16 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:06:18 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 20:06:30 [anne]
- Zakim, who is making noise?
- 20:06:32 [ArtB]
- Scribe: Art
- 20:06:37 [ArtB]
- ScribeNick: ArtB
- 20:06:40 [ArtB]
- Chair: Art
- 20:06:41 [Zakim]
- anne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ArtB (19%)
- 20:07:02 [anne]
- Zakim, mute me
- 20:07:02 [Zakim]
- anne should now be muted
- 20:07:05 [ArtB]
- Topic: Confidentiality of Minutes
- 20:07:36 [ArtB]
- AB: propose minutes be made availible to the public immediately
- 20:07:39 [ArtB]
- JS: OK with me
- 20:07:51 [ArtB]
- AB: any objections?
- 20:07:54 [tlr]
- +1 to public right away
- 20:07:57 [ArtB]
- [none heard]
- 20:08:33 [dorchard]
- q+ to ask for an agenda item
- 20:08:38 [ArtB]
- RESOLUTION: minutes will be public immediately
- 20:09:03 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:09:03 [Zakim]
- Thomas should no longer be muted
- 20:09:06 [ArtB]
- AB: what about approval procedure
- 20:09:09 [dorchard]
- I like having minutes being made public immediately and giving a week for somebody to object before final approval
- 20:09:14 [ArtB]
- DS: could be approved immediately
- 20:09:28 [ArtB]
- TR: could do the approval at the beginning of the next meeting
- 20:09:54 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:09:54 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 20:10:21 [ArtB]
- AB: propose a 1-week approval period and if no objections the minutes will be approved
- 20:10:28 [ArtB]
- AB: any objections?
- 20:10:30 [ArtB]
- [none]
- 20:11:03 [ArtB]
- RESOLUTION: after the minutes are sent to the public mail list participants will have 1-week to raise objections; otherwise mins will be considered approved
- 20:11:19 [ArtB]
- Topic: Requirements and Use Cases
- 20:13:07 [anne]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 20:13:07 [Zakim]
- anne should no longer be muted
- 20:13:42 [dorchard]
- Agenda item added at 10 minutes prior to end of call: Intro to Access Control rewrite proposal
- 20:14:08 [ArtB]
- AB: any comments on the plan for requirements and UCs?
- 20:14:21 [ArtB]
- AvK: what is the idea regarding the doc e.g. WG Note?
- 20:14:39 [ArtB]
- JS: I think a Note is a good idea
- 20:14:50 [ArtB]
- ... we need to set a deadline for completing the reqs
- 20:15:02 [ArtB]
- DO: seems right to me [Note]
- 20:15:33 [ArtB]
- ... support doing this as a note
- 20:15:53 [ArtB]
- ... some WGs have gone down the REC path but its significant overhead
- 20:16:55 [ArtB]
- DS: we could use a wiki as an intermediate step
- 20:17:10 [ArtB]
- AB: propose we create a WG Note
- 20:17:14 [ArtB]
- AB: any objections?
- 20:17:18 [ArtB]
- [none]
- 20:17:36 [ArtB]
- RESOLUTION: we shall create a WG Note for the UCs, Reqs, etc.
- 20:17:44 [anne]
- Zakim, who is making noise?
- 20:17:54 [Zakim]
- anne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ArtB (84%)
- 20:18:15 [ArtB]
- AB: what about a wiki?
- 20:18:27 [ArtB]
- JS: is one readily available for us to use?
- 20:18:42 [ArtB]
- ... and what does DO prefer?
- 20:19:02 [ArtB]
- DO: I'm indifferent; can use a wiki or the file I've started
- 20:19:05 [MikeSmith]
- [MikeSmith needs to drop off for another call. may be back..]
- 20:19:14 [Zakim]
- -Mike^mail
- 20:19:23 [ArtB]
- ... small set of Editors does help with continuity
- 20:19:39 [ArtB]
- ... can be hard with wikis
- 20:19:58 [tlr]
- zakim, who is muted?
- 20:19:58 [Zakim]
- I see Thomas muted
- 20:19:58 [ArtB]
- ... but does help when lots of people are contributing
- 20:20:55 [ArtB]
- AB: who plans to contribute?
- 20:21:24 [ArtB]
- JS: I still plan to submit my input; can do it as an email or add to the wiki
- 20:21:37 [ArtB]
- DO: make an executive decision Art
- 20:21:47 [ArtB]
- AB: my preference is a wiki
- 20:21:55 [ArtB]
- AB: any objections to doing so?
- 20:21:58 [ArtB]
- [None]
- 20:22:05 [anne]
- i disagree
- 20:22:10 [anne]
- for some reason i can't talk
- 20:22:30 [anne]
- my suggestion would be to add it in an appendix to the main specification
- 20:22:34 [ArtB]
- DO: until we get a wiki set up can we continue as we started?
- 20:22:42 [Zakim]
- -anne
- 20:23:00 [anne]
- Zakim, passcode?
- 20:23:00 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), anne
- 20:23:27 [Zakim]
- +anne
- 20:23:36 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:23:36 [Zakim]
- Thomas should no longer be muted
- 20:23:51 [ArtB]
- AB: can our member-only wiki be made Public, at least for this part?
- 20:24:25 [ArtB]
- TR: should be relatively easy to set up but it is painful to add list of writers
- 20:25:14 [sicking]
- Zakim, mute anne
- 20:25:14 [Zakim]
- anne should now be muted
- 20:25:17 [ArtB]
- TR: let's take this offline
- 20:25:20 [ArtB]
- DS: agree
- 20:25:28 [ArtB]
- AB: good point; I agree
- 20:25:31 [tlr]
- DO: have serious concerns if wiki can't be public
- 20:25:38 [sicking]
- sorry anne, you were causing echo
- 20:25:41 [ArtB]
- AB: let's drop this process-related discussion
- 20:25:43 [tlr]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:25:43 [Zakim]
- Thomas should now be muted
- 20:25:49 [Zakim]
- -anne
- 20:25:57 [anne]
- sicking, yeah, this isn't working
- 20:26:07 [anne]
- apparently my objections on IRC are also ignored
- 20:27:01 [tlr]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 20:27:01 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see sicking, Thomas (muted), DOrchard, Doug, ArtB
- 20:27:27 [tlr]
- anne, please point out what objections you are referring to.
- 20:27:33 [ArtB]
- AB: Anne, we did not make a decision on the wiki
- 20:27:52 [anne]
- RRSAgent, pointer?
- 20:27:52 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2008/01/16-waf-irc#T20-27-52
- 20:28:01 [anne]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 20:28:05 [ArtB]
- Topic: Requirements in David's document
- 20:28:32 [ArtB]
- AB: regarding 3.2, Hixie and Jonas both proposed we delete this requirement
- 20:28:35 [anne]
- http://www.w3.org/2008/01/16-waf-irc.html#T20-22-05
- 20:28:41 [ArtB]
- AB: any objections to deleting 3.2?
- 20:29:02 [ArtB]
- [None]
- 20:31:17 [ArtB]
- AB: how do we handle the existing reqs and new reqs?
- 20:31:23 [Zakim]
- +anne
- 20:31:24 [anne]
- Zakim, mute me
- 20:31:25 [Zakim]
- anne should now be muted
- 20:31:36 [ArtB]
- DO: people should make proposals for edits and new requirements
- 20:32:05 [ArtB]
- ... I am reluctant to add things without some general support
- 20:32:15 [ArtB]
- ... If a few people agree then we can add them
- 20:32:25 [ArtB]
- JS: agree we need it to be lightweight process
- 20:34:08 [ArtB]
- AB: I think the priority is to document the requirements for the existing model
- 20:34:27 [ArtB]
- JS: not clear what are the VB requirements
- 20:35:51 [ArtB]
- AB: I have an action to chase that down
- 20:36:22 [ArtB]
- JS: I ask because it could mean we could drop the XML PI if we no longer had their requirement for such support
- 20:37:56 [ArtB]
- AB: not sure how to make sure people submit comments
- 20:38:09 [ArtB]
- JS: could set a deadline
- 20:38:36 [ArtB]
- DS: what about the plans for FF implementation of the AC spec
- 20:38:56 [dorchard]
- DO: We could set a deadline of a few weeks if there are few comments over the next week or so.
- 20:39:03 [Hixie]
- <?access-control?> is really important to me for XBL2, fwiw
- 20:39:30 [Hixie]
- and i think it's critical that we allow people to make data available cross-site without playing with server configuration
- 20:39:55 [Hixie]
- i assure you that not all servers give you low-level access, e.g. many google services would never let you add an http header
- 20:40:03 [ArtB]
- JS: some people are arguing we need to make a decision now; if the spec then has major changes we will have to withdraw the impl
- 20:40:29 [ArtB]
- DS: it's relevant to understand Mozilla's timeframe
- 20:41:03 [ArtB]
- DS: DO, do you think we need major re-design?
- 20:41:22 [ArtB]
- DO: I think there are some still important open issues
- 20:41:41 [ArtB]
- ... e.g. is the PI support needed, etc.
- 20:41:53 [ArtB]
- ... think we need to nail down the requirements
- 20:42:56 [ArtB]
- DS: some people believe the spec is solid and that time is critical
- 20:43:10 [ArtB]
- ... and that we need to move forward quickly
- 20:44:05 [ArtB]
- ... My concerns: 1) it's gravely flawed and will be released anyway; 2) it doesn't cause any probs but was held back because of debate
- 20:44:37 [ArtB]
- ... Need to get it into the hands of developers
- 20:44:55 [dorchard]
- q+ to wonder about implementation priority
- 20:45:13 [tlr]
- zakim, who is muted?
- 20:45:13 [Zakim]
- I see Thomas, anne muted
- 20:46:20 [ArtB]
- DO: I think we need to be careful about a vendor putting constraints on the work just becuase they have done an implementation
- 20:46:36 [tlr]
- anne, does Opera have any specific plans?
- 20:47:02 [ArtB]
- ... think we still need to prioritize the reqs and UCs
- 20:47:06 [Zakim]
- -anne
- 20:47:26 [shepazu]
- q+
- 20:47:31 [tlr]
- that was just a side question on irc
- 20:47:46 [anne]
- tlr, we don't talk about future products
- 20:48:06 [Hixie]
- the only way we can make sure that implementations don't constrain the spec is to not delay the spec
- 20:48:21 [Hixie]
- the more we delay, the more likely it is that implementations will constrain it
- 20:48:36 [ArtB]
- DS: think a key diff here is that this functionality has been needed for at least a couple of years
- 20:48:55 [ArtB]
- ... I don't think it's good [for the Web] to delay the spec
- 20:49:36 [Zakim]
- +anne
- 20:49:37 [ArtB]
- ... Everyday developers have been asking for this functionality
- 20:49:53 [tlr]
- zakim, mute anne
- 20:49:53 [Zakim]
- anne should now be muted
- 20:50:01 [tlr]
- anne, you are unmuted if art acks you
- 20:50:04 [ArtB]
- DO: I agree with DS' last point; I don't think we want a bunch of different hacks addressing this same issue
- 20:50:06 [tlr]
- and you can unmute yourself with "ack anne"
- 20:50:16 [anne]
- q+
- 20:50:35 [ArtB]
- JS: I did think the spec was stable that's why I started my implemenation
- 20:52:19 [shepazu]
- q-
- 20:52:42 [tlr]
- q?
- 20:52:59 [tlr]
- art: we early on tried to keep the use cases constrained; now getting bashed for not extending them
- 20:53:25 [ArtB]
- JS: in the current context, 1-2 months is a really long time
- 20:53:50 [ArtB]
- ... in another mont or so it will be too late for me to make changes or even to retract
- 20:54:06 [shepazu]
- shepazu has joined #waf
- 20:55:04 [ArtB]
- DS: so if we are in LC by the end of Feb would that work with Mozilla's timeframe would we be OK?
- 20:55:11 [ArtB]
- JS: mid-Feb would be much better
- 20:55:19 [dorchard]
- This seems very risky to me from an impl perspective.
- 20:55:25 [ArtB]
- ... but I think we just need to adjust some details
- 20:55:56 [ArtB]
- JS: I realize this is an unstable spec and the WG is free to make any changes it needs
- 20:57:27 [ArtB]
- AB: I'm OK with establishing a deadline for the requirements work
- 20:57:43 [tlr]
- +1 to deadline on requirements work
- 20:57:43 [ArtB]
- ... like one week to review the existing set of reqs Dave captured
- 20:57:56 [Hixie]
- isn't it about a year after the deadline for the requirements work?
- 20:58:20 [Hixie]
- i mean, sure, it's sad that the requirements weren't captured formally, but shouldn't it be too late to change them now?
- 20:59:11 [anne]
- ack me
- 20:59:31 [ArtB]
- AB: what about giving two weeks for reqs work
- 21:00:01 [ArtB]
- JS: I think we need to document the implicit requirements
- 21:00:13 [tlr]
- sorry, syntax is *not* minor changes
- 21:00:28 [ArtB]
- AvK: the spec really hasn't changed in over one year
- 21:00:34 [tlr]
- please!
- 21:00:59 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute me
- 21:00:59 [Zakim]
- Thomas should no longer be muted
- 21:01:03 [tlr]
- q+
- 21:01:28 [ArtB]
- AvK: by this I mean the spec as Hixie had written it; the AC has been updated to reflect Hixie's version
- 21:01:45 [ArtB]
- TR: there have been changes to the syntax and semantics
- 21:02:12 [anne]
- Zakim, mute me
- 21:02:12 [Zakim]
- anne should now be muted
- 21:02:16 [ArtB]
- ... think it would be more effective to get agreement on the reqs
- 21:02:37 [Hixie]
- what happens if we don't get agreement on the reqs?
- 21:02:45 [ArtB]
- ... that is documenting the implicit requirements
- 21:02:56 [dorchard]
- DO: The document of Feb 15th 2007 does not have the authorization request, support for different methods.
- 21:02:56 [ArtB]
- JS: I agree with TR
- 21:03:05 [ArtB]
- DO: I also agree with TR
- 21:03:09 [dorchard]
- DO: so I think that the document has changed a lot int he past year.
- 21:03:13 [anne]
- shepazu, I wasn't replying to you
- 21:04:10 [ArtB]
- AB: so what can we do in the next two weeks?
- 21:04:19 [ArtB]
- DO: we can try to get closure in 2 weeks
- 21:04:30 [ArtB]
- JS: we should aim to be done in two weeks
- 21:04:53 [ArtB]
- AB: get a sense of who is willing to really help document the implicit requirements?
- 21:04:54 [tlr]
- art: want to get a sense who is willing to help document implicit reqs
- 21:04:58 [ArtB]
- AB: Anne?
- 21:05:10 [tlr]
- zakim, unmute anne
- 21:05:10 [Zakim]
- anne should no longer be muted
- 21:05:19 [tlr]
- anne: sure
- 21:05:21 [ArtB]
- AvK: sure
- 21:05:32 [ArtB]
- ... have already started
- 21:05:38 [ArtB]
- AB: Jonas?
- 21:05:40 [ArtB]
- JS: yes
- 21:05:44 [ArtB]
- AB: Thomas?
- 21:05:54 [ArtB]
- TLR: yes
- 21:06:07 [tlr]
- you can use it against us later :)
- 21:06:12 [tlr]
- q+
- 21:06:17 [ArtB]
- DO: yes
- 21:06:22 [anne]
- Zakim, mute me
- 21:06:22 [Zakim]
- anne should now be muted
- 21:06:23 [sicking]
- Zakim, mute anne
- 21:06:24 [Zakim]
- anne was already muted, sicking
- 21:06:25 [ArtB]
- ... including Editorial work
- 21:06:40 [tlr]
- apologies
- 21:07:18 [ArtB]
- AB: Hixie - can you contribute to documenting the implicit requirements?
- 21:07:18 [dorchard]
- DO: I just wanted to mention that reading consensus of the WG could be hard
- 21:07:19 [tlr]
- tr: is hixie going to contribute xbl2 reqs?
- 21:07:23 [tlr]
- js: I can probably cover that
- 21:07:57 [Hixie]
- i think documenting requirements at this stage is an extremely bad idea
- 21:08:09 [Hixie]
- since it can only lead to one thing, and that's people disagreeing with the requirements
- 21:08:14 [Hixie]
- which can itself only lead to further delays
- 21:08:22 [Hixie]
- this should have been in CR last year
- 21:08:30 [anne]
- (and that already happened, see JonF on public-appformats)
- 21:08:45 [Hixie]
- unless there are specific technical complaints, i think we should publish LC right now
- 21:09:02 [Hixie]
- and that anything else is pandering to committee-driven design
- 21:09:02 [ArtB]
- AB: everyone please contribute to the implicit requirements discussions ASAP and let's try to be "done" in two weeks.
- 21:09:50 [ArtB]
- Topic: JSONRequest
- 21:10:21 [anne]
- /dev/null ?
- 21:10:52 [ArtB]
- AB: we talked about JSONRequest last week but with no resolution
- 21:11:01 [ArtB]
- ... for example is it in scope or not
- 21:11:31 [ArtB]
- ... Would like to know if there is consensus on JSONRequest.
- 21:11:51 [tlr]
- q+
- 21:12:18 [dorchard]
- q-
- 21:12:21 [ArtB]
- ... Should it be reflected in our first LC document?
- 21:12:57 [ArtB]
- TR: it has a completely different security model than XHR
- 21:13:02 [dorchard]
- Hixie, I don't think that a commitee doing design is a bad thing. That's why we have committees.
- 21:13:07 [ArtB]
- ... I don't think it is a fit for this spec
- 21:13:16 [ArtB]
- ... Recommend we keep it out.
- 21:13:22 [ArtB]
- JS: I agree with TR.
- 21:14:04 [anne]
- JSONRequest doesn't meet the implicit requirements. Why are we discussing this again?
- 21:14:05 [ArtB]
- ... I think it adds complexity and overhead.
- 21:14:19 [ArtB]
- JS: I intend to submit a requirement that rules out JSONRequest
- 21:14:37 [ArtB]
- DO: can there be negative requirements?
- 21:14:42 [anne]
- JSONRequest doesn't do cookies/authentication, it doesn't do other formats than JSON, etc.
- 21:14:44 [ArtB]
- DS: interesting
- 21:14:48 [Hixie]
- dorchard: i fundamentally disagree with that position and would put HTML, CSS, XForms, XHTML, and a broad range of other specs as evidence supporting my opinion.
- 21:15:02 [ArtB]
- DO: is absence of a requirement good enough or do we need negative requirements
- 21:15:42 [Zakim]
- -anne
- 21:15:49 [tlr]
- q+
- 21:16:32 [ArtB]
- JS: I think JSONRequest is out of scope
- 21:16:59 [ArtB]
- DO: I am a bystander on this one
- 21:17:35 [tlr]
- js: (a) do we want to adapt the JSONRequest security model; (b) do we want to use access-control for JSONRequest
- 21:17:45 [sicking]
- JS: I think there are two separate questions when it comes to JSONRequest
- 21:18:06 [sicking]
- JS: 1. Should access-control use the JSONRequest security model
- 21:18:30 [ArtB]
- TR: wrt JSON, the client tells the server (by way of content type) that it is sending a request
- 21:18:38 [sicking]
- JS: 2. Should we expact access-control such that JSONRequest can use the access-control security model
- 21:18:48 [ArtB]
- ... the server says the req will fail when the service cannot deal with JSON
- 21:19:03 [dorchard]
- Hixie, this is the W3C which has committees. They get to decide things. That's why organizations pay to join.
- 21:19:38 [anne]
- AvK: (1) no (2) don't need JSONRequest
- 21:19:43 [sicking]
- JS: for 1 I feel that that would complicate the use of access-control too much since it would require that everything be put in a standardized JSONRequest envelope. It should be trivial to construct requirements that makes this obviously not work
- 21:19:49 [ArtB]
- TR: the one requirement we should document is: whether or not we expect cross-site requests to carry "ambient" auth information
- 21:19:56 [sicking]
- JS: for 2 I think that is out of scope for this version of the spec
- 21:20:41 [tlr]
- use case level: do we want to be able to deal with access-protected resources?
- 21:20:57 [anne]
- yes
- 21:21:09 [ArtB]
- AB: propose that JSONRequest is not in scope
- 21:21:09 [Hixie]
- dorchard: sure, and it is imperative that the editor take into account all feedback
- 21:21:22 [Hixie]
- dorchard: and if you have requirements that met, you should convey them to the editor
- 21:21:42 [Hixie]
- dorchard: who i am sure will take them into account and deal with them (especially if they don't contradict other people's requirements)
- 21:21:50 [dorchard]
- Hixie, but then you say when I give feedback and offer an alternative, that I'm "messing with the editors work"
- 21:21:51 [ArtB]
- JS: that's not quite right
- 21:21:55 [Hixie]
- dorchard: however, that's a far cry from committee-driven design
- 21:22:22 [Hixie]
- dorchard: i'm talking about normative requirements here, not how the spec is written, which is basically irrelevant at the end of the day
- 21:23:00 [sicking]
- JS: I think we should say that supporting JSONRequest is out of scope. I.e. we do not need to expand access-control such that JSONRequest is able to use it in this version of the ac spec
- 21:24:32 [ArtB]
- DO: I would add a non-requirement section
- 21:24:38 [tlr]
- +1
- 21:24:46 [ArtB]
- ... add supporting JSONRequest to that section
- 21:25:24 [ArtB]
- AB: propose we add a non-requirements section and add JSONRequest to that section and that we close ISSUE #18.
- 21:25:32 [ArtB]
- AB: any objections?
- 21:25:36 [ArtB]
- [None]
- 21:25:48 [ArtB]
- RESOULTION: we add a non-requirements section and add JSONRequest to that section and that we close ISSUE #18
- 21:26:15 [ArtB]
- Topic: Access Control Re-write Proposal
- 21:26:17 [dorchard]
- http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/Overview-Declarative-20080116.html
- 21:27:01 [ArtB]
- DO: Stuart Williams and I found the current prose a little confusing
- 21:27:13 [ArtB]
- ... we re-wrote it in pseudo-code
- 21:27:50 [ArtB]
- ... this approach is top-down
- 21:29:02 [ArtB]
- ... made a few other changes too (e.g. BNF)
- 21:29:25 [ArtB]
- ... Processing Model: added Stuart's overview input
- 21:30:11 [ArtB]
- ... The new algorithms are leveraged from the XACML spec
- 21:31:34 [ArtB]
- ... Access Item also redone in pseudo-code
- 21:31:42 [tlr]
- q+
- 21:31:59 [ArtB]
- ... We think the current style is diff to read and we think this is simpler to understand.
- 21:32:20 [ArtB]
- ... We want frank comments even if not flattering
- 21:32:38 [ArtB]
- ... If only part is adopted that's good too
- 21:32:47 [ArtB]
- ... If nothing is adopted that's OK too
- 21:33:13 [ArtB]
- ... There may be some holes/mistakes
- 21:33:25 [ArtB]
- ... But think about the overall style and think about:
- 21:33:34 [ArtB]
- ... 1. Is it easier to understand
- 21:33:36 [sicking]
- q+
- 21:33:40 [anne]
- My personal view it that it's way harder to read and understand.
- 21:33:46 [ArtB]
- ... 2. Is it easier to implement?
- 21:34:00 [ArtB]
- TR: agree with doing it top-down
- 21:34:11 [ArtB]
- ... I disagree with pseudo-code
- 21:34:49 [anne]
- And pseudo-code definitely can't replace the current normative text.
- 21:34:50 [ArtB]
- ... the XACML is based on several operators and different states and some of those states do not apply (and adds more complexity)
- 21:36:02 [ArtB]
- ... need to keep it simple
- 21:36:17 [ArtB]
- JS: I don't really care which style we use
- 21:36:20 [Hixie]
- Hixie has joined #waf
- 21:36:26 [ArtB]
- ... just don't want to ever regress
- 21:36:51 [tlr]
- no disagreement with that, either
- 21:36:58 [ArtB]
- ... need a full replacement before we change anything
- 21:37:09 [Hixie]
- RRSAgent, pointer?
- 21:37:09 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2008/01/16-waf-irc#T21-37-09
- 21:37:22 [ArtB]
- DO: you don't want new text to be lower quality than existing text
- 21:37:46 [ArtB]
- ... don't want to spend more effort on this if there isn't good support
- 21:38:06 [dorchard]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:38:06 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see sicking, Thomas, DOrchard, Doug, ArtB
- 21:39:11 [ArtB]
- AB: what about a meeting next week?
- 21:39:16 [ArtB]
- DO: think it would be good
- 21:39:25 [ArtB]
- DS: only if there has been substantial progress
- 21:39:41 [ArtB]
- TR: my schedule is free so far
- 21:39:56 [sicking]
- can you hear me?
- 21:39:58 [tlr]
- no
- 21:40:02 [tlr]
- ack sicking
- 21:40:03 [sicking]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 21:40:03 [Zakim]
- sicking was not muted, sicking
- 21:40:04 [tlr]
- q-
- 21:40:13 [tlr]
- we don't hear you
- 21:40:18 [sicking]
- i'll type here
- 21:40:33 [sicking]
- JS: I agree with DS
- 21:40:50 [sicking]
- ... would rather not spend time unless we have useful things to discuss regarding reqs
- 21:40:51 [ArtB]
- AB: I think there is critical mass for a call next week
- 21:41:01 [anne]
- I agree with Jonas and Doug
- 21:41:23 [ArtB]
- AB: there is an action for everyone to submit comments on David and Sturart's proposal before next week's meeting.
- 21:41:51 [sicking]
- JS: thanks guys
- 21:41:53 [anne]
- I feel that a lot what we discussed could've been done over e-mail
- 21:41:55 [Zakim]
- -DOrchard
- 21:41:55 [ArtB]
- AB: meeting adjorend
- 21:41:58 [Zakim]
- -Thomas
- 21:42:02 [Zakim]
- -sicking
- 21:42:05 [ArtB]
- rrsagent, make minutes public
- 21:42:05 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', ArtB. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 21:42:06 [Zakim]
- -Doug
- 21:42:15 [ArtB]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 21:42:22 [ArtB]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 21:42:22 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/16-waf-minutes.html ArtB
- 21:42:32 [Zakim]
- -ArtB
- 21:42:34 [Zakim]
- IA_WAF()3:00PM has ended
- 21:42:36 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Anne_van_Kesteren, Thomas, +1.781.993.aaaa, ArtB, anne, DOrchard, Doug, Mike^mail, sicking
- 22:42:44 [Lachy]
- Lachy has joined #waf
- 23:02:03 [ArtB]
- ArtB has joined #waf
- 23:02:57 [ArtB]
- zakim, bye
- 23:02:57 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #waf
- 23:03:20 [ArtB]
- rrsagent, log?
- 23:03:20 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'log'
- 23:05:22 [ArtB]
- rrsagent, bye
- 23:05:22 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items