Introduction

http://www.w3.org/2013/03/push-pag-charter.html

Yves: the spec is quite small, the PAG slows it down
... it's also of interest to sysapps, check with dsr

efullea: Which version of the spec will be analyzed?
... latest ED has substantial changes over PWD

<Zakim> shepazu, you wanted to address that qestion

<Yves> +1 on pushing a new version asap

shepazu: we're trying to produce a RF spec, so it's most relevant for us to review the latest draft

efullea: will work with co-editor and chairs to publish a next WD

<shepazu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/tip/index.html

dbaron: the current ED is essentially a different approach from the current WD
... an option would be to publish as a new spec, on which there might be different disclosures

<efullea> there are substantial changes with regards to the TR draft but it is definitely not a new spec

chaals: that would be unusual

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to reply to dbaron

<chaals> [For the record: Nokia really doesn't have anyone at work in July who has the basic knowledge to participate in a simple group like this?]

efullea: ask Nokia whether they believe their exclusions to apply to latest draft

Mode of work and confidentiality level

wseltzer: Should we operate in member-only mode?

Shall we operate in member-only mode?

<chaals> [couldn't care less]

Postpone the decision, continue operating in public for now.

Scheduling ongoing work

wseltzer: Seeking volunteers for ongoing work

efullea: volunteers

dka: made a request to GSMA for legal assistance

<chaals> [I will do some work too]

shepazu: suggests that mailing list be our primary mode of interaction, with teleconfs scheduled only as necessary

<Zakim> dka, you wanted to comment on call schedule

dka: TAG has made calls into status updates; short but frequent

shepazu: methods: everyone reads the spec, everyone reads the patents and extracts the independent claims
... group assesses match or not of essential claims of spec to independent claims' elements

<dka> +1 to shepazu's comments.

shepazu: we should look for the work necessary to produce an RF spec, not unnecessary invalidty analysis
... I'll take the action to start a page on patent claims analysis