edit

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 03 February 2014

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.02.03
Seen
Alexandre Bertails, Andrei Sambra, Arnaud Le Hors, Ashok Malhotra, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Henry Story, John Arwe, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Sandro Hawke, Serena Villata, Steve Battle, Steve Speicher
Chair
Arnaud Le Hors
Scribe
Andrei Sambra
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Minutes from Jan 27th approved link
  2. Close ISSUE-93 doing nothing to the spec and adding appropriate language to the best practice & guidelines doc. link
Topics
14:59:02 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-ldp-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-ldp-irc

14:59:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public

14:59:06 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP

14:59:06 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started

14:59:07 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:59:07 <trackbot> Date: 03 February 2014
14:59:24 <Zakim> +ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP

14:59:50 <Zakim> +Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud

15:00:05 <Zakim> +??P6

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6

15:00:20 <Zakim> +[IBM]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM]

15:00:30 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me

Steve Speicher: zakim, [IBM] is me

15:00:30 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it

15:00:48 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?

Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone?

15:00:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], ericP (muted), Arnaud, pchampin, SteveS

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see [IPcaller], ericP (muted), Arnaud, pchampin, SteveS

15:01:16 <Ashok> zakim, IPCaller is me

Ashok Malhotra: zakim, IPCaller is me

15:01:16 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok; got it

15:01:43 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

15:01:46 <Zakim> +Andrei

Zakim IRC Bot: +Andrei

15:02:01 <betehess> Zakim, Andrei also has Alexandre

Alexandre Bertails: Zakim, Andrei also has Alexandre

15:02:01 <Zakim> +Alexandre; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre; got it

15:04:51 <Zakim> +JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe

15:04:52 <deiu> scribe: Andrei Sambra

(Scribe set to Andrei Sambra)

15:05:00 <deiu> scribenick: deiu
<deiu> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.02.03
<deiu> chair: Arnaud
15:06:02 <deiu> Arnaud: let's get started; I'm not sure we'll need 1h30

Arnaud Le Hors: let's get started; I'm not sure we'll need 1h30

<deiu> topic: Admin

1. Admin

15:06:13 <betehess> looks ok to me

Alexandre Bertails: looks ok to me

15:06:27 <deiu> ... approval of minutes from Jan 27th, everyone ok with it?

... approval of minutes from Jan 27th, everyone ok with it?

<deiu> ... http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-01-27

... http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-01-27

15:06:33 <deiu> ... no objections -> minutes approved

... no objections -> minutes approved

<deiu> Resolved: Minutes from Jan 27th approved

RESOLVED: Minutes from Jan 27th approved

15:06:41 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

15:06:52 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P4 is me

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P4 is me

15:06:52 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it

15:06:56 <deiu> ... next meeting is set for next week

... next meeting is set for next week

15:07:03 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me

15:07:03 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted

15:07:19 <Zakim> +bblfish

Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish

15:07:19 <deiu> ... maybe we can reduce the call length to 1h, depending on content

... maybe we can reduce the call length to 1h, depending on content

15:07:40 <deiu> Topic: Tracking of actions

2. Tracking of actions

15:07:51 <deiu> steves: Action-123 is pending review

Steve Speicher: ACTION-123 is pending review

15:08:05 <deiu> ... it is still open for people to review it

... it is still open for people to review it

<deiu> Arnaud: ok, we will close it

Arnaud Le Hors: ok, we will close it

15:08:25 <Zakim> +??P18

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18

15:08:35 <bblfish> hi

Henry Story: hi

15:08:41 <deiu> Arnaud: any other actions that people can claim victory on?

Arnaud Le Hors: any other actions that people can claim victory on?

15:08:48 <svillata> Zakim, ??P18 is me

Serena Villata: Zakim, ??P18 is me

15:08:48 <Zakim> +svillata; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +svillata; got it

15:09:06 <ericP> ack me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me

15:09:18 <deiu> Arnaud: what about Action-118?

Arnaud Le Hors: what about ACTION-118?

15:09:30 <JohnArwe> action-118?

John Arwe: ACTION-118?

15:09:30 <trackbot> action-118 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to Report to timbl: some pref for reverting to 303, 200+header still on the table, henry considering 200+location -- due 2013-12-23 -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-118 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to Report to timbl: some pref for reverting to 303, 200+header still on the table, henry considering 200+location -- due 2013-12-23 -- OPEN

15:09:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/118

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/118

15:09:43 <SteveS> I made some progress on ACTION-120, just terms and some informative stuff...maybe 45% done with it

Steve Speicher: I made some progress on ACTION-120, just terms and some informative stuff...maybe 45% done with it

15:09:57 <deiu> ericP: Arnauld and I are trying to figure it out. We have a variety of actions. If they get a new 2xx code, what do they say? Ok, or 209?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Arnaud and I are trying to figure it out. We have a variety of actions. If they get a new 2xx code, what do they say? Ok, or 209?

15:10:10 <deiu> ... we just need to figure how clients with behave

... we just need to figure how clients with behave

15:10:10 <betehess> s/Arnauld/Arnaud/
15:10:45 <deiu> Arnaud: the way things are going, we are not going to have the 2xx in time so we will probably revert to 303

Arnaud Le Hors: the way things are going, we are not going to have the 2xx in time so we will probably revert to 303

15:11:01 <deiu> sandro: can we do 2xx later?

Sandro Hawke: can we do 2xx later?

15:11:13 <Zakim> + +44.754.550.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.754.550.aaaa

15:11:56 <deiu> ericP: now the spec says "use 2xx" and somehow involve the IETF to standardize it

Eric Prud'hommeaux: now the spec says "use 2xx" and somehow involve the IETF to standardize it

15:12:09 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

15:12:19 <stevebattle14> zakim aaaa is me

Steve Battle: zakim aaaa is me

15:12:28 <deiu> sandro: it may take some implementations before IETF can move on it

Sandro Hawke: it may take some implementations before IETF can move on it

15:12:44 <deiu> ericP: we can exploit the W3C's influence (?)

Eric Prud'hommeaux: we can exploit the W3C's influence (?)

15:12:55 <deiu> ericP, we can just leave it there for now

Eric Prud'hommeaux: we can just leave it there for now

15:13:05 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

15:13:06 <deiu> s/ericP,/ericP:
15:13:23 <deiu> bblfish: there was a discussion going on in the W3C arch group about 2xx

Henry Story: there was a discussion going on in the W3C arch group about 2xx

15:13:30 <deiu> ericP: do you mean the TAG list?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: do you mean the TAG list?

15:13:33 <deiu> bblfish: yes

Henry Story: yes

15:13:43 <stevebattle14> zakim, .aaaa is me

Steve Battle: zakim, .aaaa is me

15:13:43 <Zakim> sorry, stevebattle14, I do not recognize a party named '.aaaa'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, stevebattle14, I do not recognize a party named '.aaaa'

15:13:59 <stevebattle14> zakim, aaaa is me

Steve Battle: zakim, aaaa is me

15:13:59 <Zakim> +stevebattle14; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +stevebattle14; got it

15:13:59 <deiu> ericP: the person who is taking this to IETF has reviewed all of that and convinced himself of a particular course of action, so we're good there

Eric Prud'hommeaux: the person who is taking this to IETF has reviewed all of that and convinced himself of a particular course of action, so we're good there

<deiu> topic: ISSUE-93 - AcceptLevels

3. ISSUE-93 - AcceptLevels

15:14:04 <deiu> issue-93?

ISSUE-93?

15:14:04 <trackbot> issue-93 -- Accept and Auth -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-93 -- Accept and Auth -- raised

15:14:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/93

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/93

15:14:17 <deiu> Arnaud: this is the last open issue we have

Arnaud Le Hors: this is the last open issue we have

15:14:40 <deiu> ... it has to do with the spec that doesn't mention authentication and authorization

... it has to do with the spec that doesn't mention authentication and authorization

15:14:55 <deiu> ... the spec requires the server to send a list of operations that the server supports

... the spec requires the server to send a list of operations that the server supports

15:15:28 <deiu> ... the question is: should the server do that based on the user's credentials and authorization level?

... the question is: should the server do that based on the user's credentials and authorization level?

15:15:40 <bblfish> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-HTTP_OPTIONS

Henry Story: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-HTTP_OPTIONS

15:15:56 <bblfish> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-HTTP_GET

Henry Story: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-HTTP_GET

15:16:03 <deiu> ... if you were to take into account that credentials is an expensive operation to do, this might be wasted time

... if you were to take into account that credentials is an expensive operation to do, this might be wasted time

15:16:22 <bblfish> Arnaud: it's section 5.3.2

Arnaud Le Hors: it's section 5.3.2 [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ]

15:16:31 <deiu> ... we have thought about removing the section from the GET, or just "soften" it to a SHOULD

... we have thought about removing the section from the GET, or just "soften" it to a SHOULD

15:16:43 <deiu> ... this was added in response to timbl's comments

... this was added in response to timbl's comments

15:17:01 <deiu> ... I am afraid that softening/removing it might change timbl's position

... I am afraid that softening/removing it might change timbl's position

15:17:17 <deiu> ... it could be added instead to a "best practices" document

... it could be added instead to a "best practices" document

15:17:29 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

15:17:35 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

15:17:59 <deiu> bblfish: I suppose the question remained a bit to the expense of calculating the level of access

Henry Story: I suppose the question remained a bit to the expense of calculating the level of access

15:18:20 <deiu> ... there's two types of options: Read (always the same for nearly any user when doing a GET)

... there's two types of options: Read (always the same for nearly any user when doing a GET)

15:18:54 <deiu> ... the argument was that it is expensive to calculate, give that it might not be useful for the client

... the argument was that it is expensive to calculate, give that it might not be useful for the client

15:19:16 <deiu> Arnaud: I am a bit reluctant to adding authentication in the spec (we're not talking about it anywhere)

Arnaud Le Hors: I am a bit reluctant to adding authentication in the spec (we're not talking about it anywhere)

15:19:34 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

15:19:52 <Arnaud> ack steveS

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveS

15:19:53 <deiu> ... isn't there another place where we could mention it? It might be better to avoid it and just mention that there are external factors such as authn

... isn't there another place where we could mention it? It might be better to avoid it and just mention that there are external factors such as authn

15:20:19 <deiu> SteveS: for some apps, the cost of computing ACL is based on other logic...so it might be just an application problem

Steve Speicher: for some apps, the cost of computing ACL is based on other logic...so it might be just an application problem

15:20:37 <deiu> ... there are lots of different cases that lead to complex rules

... there are lots of different cases that lead to complex rules

15:20:58 <deiu> ... it might be good to just put this in the best practices document

... it might be good to just put this in the best practices document

15:21:09 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-93 doing nothing to the spec and adding appropriate language to the best practice & guidelines doc.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-93 doing nothing to the spec and adding appropriate language to the best practice & guidelines doc.

15:21:15 <deiu> Arnaud: I haven't heard anything that makes me think we should change the proposal

Arnaud Le Hors: I haven't heard anything that makes me think we should change the proposal

15:21:22 <deiu> bblfish: wouldn't SHOULD be better?

Henry Story: wouldn't SHOULD be better?

15:21:41 <deiu> Arnaud: my main concern is that we made it a MUST to answer timbl's comments

Arnaud Le Hors: my main concern is that we made it a MUST to answer timbl's comments

15:22:12 <JohnArwe> +1

John Arwe: +1

15:22:13 <deiu> ... I'm just trying to address timbl's concerns

... I'm just trying to address timbl's concerns

15:22:18 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

15:22:19 <SteveS> +1 think it is good to keep a must and provide best practices/guidance

Steve Speicher: +1 think it is good to keep a must and provide best practices/guidance

15:22:19 <deiu> +1

+1

15:22:19 <svillata> +1

Serena Villata: +1

15:22:22 <betehess> +1

Alexandre Bertails: +1

15:22:26 <pchampin> +0

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +0

15:22:31 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

15:22:47 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

15:22:57 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-93 doing nothing to the spec and adding appropriate language to the best practice & guidelines doc.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-93 doing nothing to the spec and adding appropriate language to the best practice & guidelines doc.

15:23:17 <deiu> Arnaud: we have now officially closed all the issues! congrats!

Arnaud Le Hors: we have now officially closed all the issues! congrats!

15:23:35 <deiu> ... let's move on to the spec's status

... let's move on to the spec's status

15:23:43 <deiu> Topic: Spec status

4. Spec status

15:24:00 <deiu> ... I just wanted to make sure that we stay on track as much as possible

... I just wanted to make sure that we stay on track as much as possible

15:24:12 <deiu> ... if you saw the list of actions, the editors have a lot of work to do

... if you saw the list of actions, the editors have a lot of work to do

15:24:39 <deiu> ... there is a lot of work ahead for the editors, so how do they feel about the schedule?

... there is a lot of work ahead for the editors, so how do they feel about the schedule?

15:24:55 <deiu> SteveS: we have 9 editor actions open

Steve Speicher: we have 9 editor actions open

15:25:23 <deiu> ... 2 or 3 have a big impact, so maybe by next Monday we can have some of them completed

... 2 or 3 have a big impact, so maybe by next Monday we can have some of them completed

15:25:57 <deiu> ... there is still the "preferred header" action that needs some more discussion

... there is still the "preferred header" action that needs some more discussion

15:26:17 <deiu> JohnArwe, I'm agnostic on the syntax

JohnArwe, I'm agnostic on the syntax

15:26:52 <deiu> Arnaud: we made a bunch of decisions to use the Preferred header, but TallTed asked "why not use URLs instead of keywords?"

Arnaud Le Hors: we made a bunch of decisions to use the Preferred header, but TallTed asked "why not use URLs instead of keywords?"

15:26:56 <betehess> q+

Alexandre Bertails: q+

15:27:05 <JohnArwe> ted's email is at http://www.w3.org/mid/24D52177-A2E6-46C4-B304-D7263FA5B82B%2540openlinksw.com

John Arwe: ted's email is at http://www.w3.org/mid/24D52177-A2E6-46C4-B304-D7263FA5B82B%2540openlinksw.com

15:27:12 <deiu> ... there shouldn't be much argument, but I don't think this is a deeply technical issue

... there shouldn't be much argument, but I don't think this is a deeply technical issue

15:27:15 <Arnaud> ack betehess

Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess

15:28:11 <deiu> Arnaud: let's finish with the spec status first

Arnaud Le Hors: let's finish with the spec status first

15:28:32 <deiu> ... we'll go back to the issue after that

... we'll go back to the issue after that

15:28:52 <deiu> ... the goal is to have a spec that is ready to publish and that we can give to the group for review

... the goal is to have a spec that is ready to publish and that we can give to the group for review

15:29:05 <deiu> ... how does everyone feel about the schedule? is that doable?

... how does everyone feel about the schedule? is that doable?

15:29:23 <SteveS> I can make it work

Steve Speicher: I can make it work

15:29:27 <deiu> ... any comments on how much time people need to review the spec?

... any comments on how much time people need to review the spec?

15:29:30 <betehess> 1 week to review should be fine

Alexandre Bertails: 1 week to review should be fine

15:29:40 <betehess> but we may have some feedback to discuss about

Alexandre Bertails: but we may have some feedback to discuss about

15:29:49 <deiu> Ashok: one week is ok, but then again maybe two weeks

Ashok Malhotra: one week is ok, but then again maybe two weeks

15:30:27 <deiu> Arnaud: I don't know if we need to reach out that far, but we still have a 3 week period when everyone can take a look and comment

Arnaud Le Hors: I don't know if we need to reach out that far, but we still have a 3 week period when everyone can take a look and comment

15:30:39 <deiu> ... but I'm more interested in what the group members have to say about it

... but I'm more interested in what the group members have to say about it

15:31:04 <deiu> ... not much reaction...

... not much reaction...

15:31:08 <pchampin> not sure, but 1 week should be ok

Pierre-Antoine Champin: not sure, but 1 week should be ok

15:31:24 <svillata> 1 week is ok

Serena Villata: 1 week is ok

15:31:27 <ericP> we want to optimally leverage the pain of the editors

Eric Prud'hommeaux: we want to optimally leverage the pain of the editors

15:31:38 <deiu> ... if we can do it in one week, that would be great. Otherwise, we could maybe have 10 days.

... if we can do it in one week, that would be great. Otherwise, we could maybe have 10 days.

15:31:45 <deiu> ... we can figure it out next week

... we can figure it out next week

15:31:58 <deiu> ... that still means that we would be done by March 3rd

... that still means that we would be done by March 3rd

15:32:13 <deiu> ... looking at it I see that it's pushing things a bit further

... looking at it I see that it's pushing things a bit further

15:32:38 <deiu> Topic: F2F meeting

5. F2F meeting

15:32:59 <deiu> if the last call ends on March 24th, then we cannot meet before that

if the last call ends on March 24th, then we cannot meet before that

15:33:15 <deiu> ... what this tells me is that the f2f should be one week after March 24th

... what this tells me is that the f2f should be one week after March 24th

15:33:32 <SteveS> Conflict for me

Steve Speicher: Conflict for me

15:33:33 <bblfish> what is the aim of the f2f?

Henry Story: what is the aim of the f2f?

15:33:35 <deiu> ... is there any conflict for that period?

... is there any conflict for that period?

15:33:44 <deiu> ... for the 1st week of April

... for the 1st week of April

15:34:03 <deiu> ... we first need to decide on the date before picking the venue

... we first need to decide on the date before picking the venue

15:34:11 <pchampin> that's just before WWW2014, isn't it?

Pierre-Antoine Champin: that's just before WWW2014, isn't it?

15:34:23 <ericP> would decisions made on 1 April be binding?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: would decisions made on 1 April be binding?

15:35:17 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

15:35:17 <deiu> Arnaud: I would like to sort out the comments that we might receive during the week of 24th

Arnaud Le Hors: I would like to sort out the comments that we might receive during the week of 24th

15:35:22 <svillata> WWW2014 - April 7-11

Serena Villata: WWW2014 - April 7-11

15:35:40 <deiu> SteveS: I have a meeting in that period and there's also the WWW2014 conf.

Steve Speicher: I have a meeting in that period and there's also the WWW2014 conf.

15:35:42 <nmihindu> pchampin, WWW2014 -> April 7 - 11

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: pchampin, WWW2014 -> April 7 - 11

15:35:51 <ericP> co-lo with WWW?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: co-lo with WWW?

15:36:01 <ericP> oh, i think it's in asia, iirc

Eric Prud'hommeaux: oh, i think it's in asia, iirc

15:36:04 <deiu> bblfish: what is the aim of the meeting?

Henry Story: what is the aim of the meeting?

15:36:27 <deiu> Arnaud: to deal with any comments/issues we get out of the LC

Arnaud Le Hors: to deal with any comments/issues we get out of the LC

15:36:28 <bblfish> www2014 is in Korea http://www2014.kr/

Henry Story: www2014 is in Korea http://www2014.kr/

15:36:49 <deiu> ... we don't know how many comments we get, so for planning purposes we should schedule ahead of time

... we don't know how many comments we get, so for planning purposes we should schedule ahead of time

15:37:03 <deiu> bblfish: you need at least a month for people to review and send comments/issues

Henry Story: you need at least a month for people to review and send comments/issues

15:37:16 <deiu> Arnaud: maybe not a month but 3 weeks

Arnaud Le Hors: maybe not a month but 3 weeks

15:37:28 <SteveS> I'm in Seattle April 1-3 for http://www.alm-forum.com/

Steve Speicher: I'm in Seattle April 1-3 for http://www.alm-forum.com/

15:37:36 <deiu> ... we should meet after that for the f2f so we can address those issues then

... we should meet after that for the f2f so we can address those issues then

15:37:52 <deiu> ... it seems we have nothing before the week of April 14th

... it seems we have nothing before the week of April 14th

15:37:58 <Ashok> Who is going to WWW2014?

Ashok Malhotra: Who is going to WWW2014?

15:38:16 <deiu> ... my concern is that if it takes that long to address all the comments, it's going to further shift the schedule

... my concern is that if it takes that long to address all the comments, it's going to further shift the schedule

15:38:19 <SteveS> not going to WWW2014

Steve Speicher: not going to WWW2014

15:38:32 <Ashok> me neither

Ashok Malhotra: me neither

15:38:37 <deiu> ... there is also the possibility to exit LC right away, but anyway, there isn't much choice

... there is also the possibility to exit LC right away, but anyway, there isn't much choice

15:39:03 <ericP> i'm stuck at home 16-17 April

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'm stuck at home 16-17 April

15:39:14 <deiu> Arnaud: the meeting can last for 2 days if we have no major issues; is it ok for April 15th to 17th?

Arnaud Le Hors: the meeting can last for 2 days if we have no major issues; is it ok for April 15th to 17th?

15:39:16 <ericP> bring it

Eric Prud'hommeaux: bring it

15:39:24 <SteveS> Week of April 14th could work for me

Steve Speicher: Week of April 14th could work for me

15:39:36 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

15:39:41 <deiu> Arnaud: we can look at it again next week

Arnaud Le Hors: we can look at it again next week

15:39:51 <bblfish> q-

Henry Story: q-

15:39:56 <Arnaud> ack Ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok

15:39:57 <deiu> ... if we have proposals for locations...

... if we have proposals for locations...

15:40:46 <deiu> Ashok: I'm thinking we can go with 2 days if we don't have too many comments, or extend it otherwise

Ashok Malhotra: I'm thinking we can go with 2 days if we don't have too many comments, or extend it otherwise

15:41:15 <deiu> ... bblfish offered to host it in Paris

... bblfish offered to host it in Paris

15:41:26 <ericP> paris would be just about doable for me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: paris would be just about doable for me

15:41:34 <deiu> bblfish: Oracle also has offices in Paris :)

Henry Story: Oracle also has offices in Paris :)

15:41:36 <ericP> at least a few hours/day

Eric Prud'hommeaux: at least a few hours/day

15:41:40 <JohnArwe> @betehess: in either Prefer proposal, we're defining something... either parameters or [forgets what other word is].  I think in the currently resolved syntax (mine), I only defined parameter names ... I don't know that we'd have the freedom to say those are interpreted as URIs; then again I don't recall anything in the RFC prohibiting doing so.  If Ted's alternative involves parameter Values, we'd almost certainly

John Arwe: @betehess: in either Prefer proposal, we're defining something... either parameters or [forgets what other word is]. I think in the currently resolved syntax (mine), I only defined parameter names ... I don't know that we'd have the freedom to say those are interpreted as URIs; then again I don't recall anything in the RFC prohibiting doing so. If Ted's alternative involves parameter Values, we'd almost certainly

15:41:40 <JohnArwe>  be able to say we have the authority to say how the values are interpreted.

John Arwe: be able to say we have the authority to say how the values are interpreted.

<deiu> Topic: Prefer header

6. Prefer header

15:41:50 <deiu> Arnaud: let's go back to the issue about the Preferred header

Arnaud Le Hors: let's go back to the issue about the Preferred header

15:41:55 <bblfish> I would like to help organise a meeting in Paris

Henry Story: I would like to help organise a meeting in Paris

15:42:00 <deiu> betehess: I have two questions

Alexandre Bertails: I have two questions

15:42:27 <deiu> ... first is about the syntax; I'm not sure what you guys mean when you speak about syntax

... first is about the syntax; I'm not sure what you guys mean when you speak about syntax

15:42:42 <deiu> Arnaud: it's just a way to express it in the header (how you use it)

Arnaud Le Hors: it's just a way to express it in the header (how you use it)

15:43:18 <deiu> JohnArwe: TallTed was wondering if we could have URIs instead of keywords

John Arwe: TallTed was wondering if we could have URIs instead of keywords

15:43:38 <JohnArwe> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18#section-2

John Arwe: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18#section-2

15:43:40 <deiu> ... I'm not sure they can be interpreted as URIs, nor if the RFC mentions it

... I'm not sure they can be interpreted as URIs, nor if the RFC mentions it

15:44:23 <betehess> my take is that we shouldn't try to make it a URI just like we did for rel=type

Alexandre Bertails: my take is that we shouldn't try to make it a URI just like we did for rel=type

15:44:30 <deiu> ... the RFC offers different values for the production name

... the RFC offers different values for the production name

15:44:43 <betehess> q+

Alexandre Bertails: q+

15:44:56 <Arnaud> ack betehess

Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess

15:45:10 <deiu> betehess: I didn't understand TallTed's use case

Alexandre Bertails: I didn't understand TallTed's use case

15:45:26 <deiu> ... we only have a few places where we're not doing it already (i.e. rel=type header)

... we only have a few places where we're not doing it already (i.e. rel=type header)

15:45:34 <deiu> ... there's no URI there but we can still do a lot with it

... there's no URI there but we can still do a lot with it

15:46:00 <JohnArwe> In his email: All of these "ldp-*" strings could (and probably should) be

John Arwe: In his email: All of these "ldp-*" strings could (and probably should) be

15:46:00 <JohnArwe> replaced with URIs which return their meanings.

John Arwe: replaced with URIs which return their meanings.

15:46:01 <deiu> Arnaud: for humans it is nice to have URIs, as it can be clicked to get more info about it

Arnaud Le Hors: for humans it is nice to have URIs, as it can be clicked to get more info about it

15:46:27 <deiu> ... TallTed is not here to defend it, and no one is trying to defend his proposal

... TallTed is not here to defend it, and no one is trying to defend his proposal

15:46:39 <deiu> ... it shouldn't affect the spec that much if we just leave it at it for now

... it shouldn't affect the spec that much if we just leave it at it for now

15:46:41 <betehess> @JohnArwe, this comes at the cost of longer "keywords"

Alexandre Bertails: @JohnArwe, this comes at the cost of longer strings

15:46:58 <deiu> ... we'll see if TallTed considers it seriously and if he wants to defend it

... we'll see if TallTed considers it seriously and if he wants to defend it

15:47:08 <betehess> s/"keywords"/strings/
15:47:14 <deiu> ... is everyone OK with it?

... is everyone OK with it?

15:47:25 <deiu> Topic: Update on implementations

7. Update on implementations

15:47:27 <JohnArwe> the biggest effect I know of on the spec would be, if we go with Ted's, we remove the "omit" preference registration and just describe the parameters we're adding to return=minimal (which already is registered by the RFC)

John Arwe: the biggest effect I know of on the spec would be, if we go with Ted's, we remove the "omit" preference registration and just describe the parameters we're adding to return=minimal (which already is registered by the RFC)

15:47:46 <deiu> Arnaud: there's a possibility to compress the timeline by skipping CR

Arnaud Le Hors: there's a possibility to compress the timeline by skipping CR

15:47:59 <deiu> ... CR was introduced to encourage people to implement the spec

... CR was introduced to encourage people to implement the spec

15:48:43 <deiu> ... it's a way to assure devs that the spec is stable and that it can be implemented

... it's a way to assure devs that the spec is stable and that it can be implemented

15:49:00 <deiu> ... we have to define an exit criteria

... we have to define an exit criteria

15:49:11 <deiu> ... there's a question of the test suite and harness

... there's a question of the test suite and harness

15:49:30 <deiu> ... it may not be possible that the test harness can test all implementations

... it may not be possible that the test harness can test all implementations

15:49:57 <deiu> ... I expect the exit criteria for the CR to be rather in the form of claims; people saying that they have implemented the spec

... I expect the exit criteria for the CR to be rather in the form of claims; people saying that they have implemented the spec

15:50:10 <sandro> q+ to ask about client libraries

Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask about client libraries

15:50:11 <deiu> ... we need to define a minimum number of implementations

... we need to define a minimum number of implementations

15:50:43 <deiu> ... even with all of that, how long will people need to implement the spec, where "implement" doesn't need to reach production levels

... even with all of that, how long will people need to implement the spec, where "implement" doesn't need to reach production levels

15:51:22 <deiu> ... seeing that the spec is changing, it may take time for people to update their implementations/prototypes

... seeing that the spec is changing, it may take time for people to update their implementations/prototypes

15:51:47 <deiu> ... who can we depend on for implementations?

... who can we depend on for implementations?

15:51:52 <Arnaud> q?

Arnaud Le Hors: q?

15:51:55 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

15:51:55 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about client libraries

Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask about client libraries

15:52:28 <deiu> sandro: I've been thinking about this a lot lately. One thing that I'd like to have is a client library that hides all the complexity of the different things the server can do

Sandro Hawke: I've been thinking about this a lot lately. One thing that I'd like to have is a client library that hides all the complexity of the different things the server can do

15:52:39 <deiu> ... I want to be able to traverse a container for example

... I want to be able to traverse a container for example

15:52:57 <ericP> sandro, GET /Container -> gives you a language-native iterator?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: sandro, GET /Container -> gives you a language-native iterator?

15:52:59 <deiu> ... the client should understand the different kinds of container types and membership predicates

... the client should understand the different kinds of container types and membership predicates

15:53:19 <deiu> ... paging too

... paging too

15:53:27 <SteveS> I fully intend to have simple JAX-RS+Jena server reference impl out through http://eclipse.org/lyo project, already have a start

Steve Speicher: I fully intend to have simple JAX-RS+Jena server reference impl out through http://eclipse.org/lyo project, already have a start

15:53:35 <deiu> ... I'd also like to see a test suite

... I'd also like to see a test suite

15:53:39 <SteveS> sooner than later

Steve Speicher: sooner than later

15:53:40 <JohnArwe> @sandro: "traversing" => membership triples, containment triples, either?  or also non-member props?

John Arwe: @sandro: "traversing" => membership triples, containment triples, either? or also non-member props?

15:54:08 <deiu> Arnaud: test suite is important

Arnaud Le Hors: test suite is important

15:54:11 <nmihindu> We have an implementation (ALM iStack) which implements first LCWD (without some features such as paging) but then we stopped updating it until the spec becomes stable again with the latest changes. We will update it when we go for the second LCWD.

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: We have an implementation (ALM iStack) which implements first LCWD (without some features such as paging) but then we stopped updating it until the spec becomes stable again with the latest changes. We will update it when we go for the second LCWD.

15:54:29 <deiu> ... also domain specific tests should be nice to have

... also domain specific tests should be nice to have

15:54:41 <deiu> ... there's a link to a Wiki page that lists LDP implementations

... there's a link to a Wiki page that lists LDP implementations

15:55:17 <deiu> ... people added references there, so these are the first things that we can look at for possible claim compliance

... people added references there, so these are the first things that we can look at for possible claim compliance

15:55:19 <ericP> q+ to ask if any OSLC stuff is world-visible

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask if any OSLC stuff is world-visible

15:55:38 <JohnArwe> @ericp: all oslc specs are world-readable

John Arwe: @ericp: all oslc specs are world-readable

15:55:46 <deiu> ... can the people who posted there step forward and commit to implementing the spec?

... can the people who posted there step forward and commit to implementing the spec?

15:55:48 <sandro> JohnArwe, either, I think.   To the client, it's just a container with resources in it, to a first approximation.  The client library should provide that view, given all the different ways the server might do it.

Sandro Hawke: JohnArwe, either, I think. To the client, it's just a container with resources in it, to a first approximation. The client library should provide that view, given all the different ways the server might do it.

15:56:03 <ericP> @JohnArwe, i mean the actual endpoints

Eric Prud'hommeaux: @JohnArwe, i mean the actual endpoints

15:56:08 <ericP> ack me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me

15:56:08 <deiu> ... if we have 3 implementations by the end of the LC, we could possibly skip CR

... if we have 3 implementations by the end of the LC, we could possibly skip CR

15:56:09 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if any OSLC stuff is world-visible

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask if any OSLC stuff is world-visible

15:56:10 <JohnArwe> @ericp: most of the reference implementations for oslc are in Eclipse Lyo, same place Steve is doing the LDP one

John Arwe: @ericp: most of the reference implementations for oslc are in Eclipse Lyo, same place Steve is doing the LDP one

15:56:11 <Arnaud> ack ericP

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ericP

15:56:15 <SteveS> OSLC is "world visible" http://www.oasis-oslc.org/ for OASIS stuff and http://oslc.co for main site

Steve Speicher: OSLC is "world visible" http://www.oasis-oslc.org/ for OASIS stuff and http://oslc.co for main site

15:56:40 <deiu> ericP: I was wondering if any of those implems happen to be world visible? Do they require authn?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I was wondering if any of those implems happen to be world visible? Do they require authn?

15:57:02 <deiu> SteveS, OSLC is waiting for the spec to be stable

Steve Speicher: OSLC is waiting for the spec to be stable

15:57:18 <deiu> s/SteveS,/SteveS:
15:57:36 <deiu> sandro: can you sync that with the REC?

Sandro Hawke: can you sync that with the REC?

15:57:56 <deiu> SteveS: we're pushing it and we have a lot of motivation to have it implemented

Steve Speicher: we're pushing it and we have a lot of motivation to have it implemented

15:58:07 <deiu> ... we have internal implementations working

... we have internal implementations working

15:58:13 <JohnArwe> @sandro: I can imagine that your abstraction layer library would also turn "prefer" into "must" if necessary by filtering out extras.  e.g. if client prefers membership only, and the server ignores preference, your lib could filter those out.

John Arwe: @sandro: I can imagine that your abstraction layer library would also turn "prefer" into "must" if necessary by filtering out extras. e.g. if client prefers membership only, and the server ignores preference, your lib could filter those out.

15:58:38 <JohnArwe> ...those = containment, non-member props

John Arwe: ...those = containment, non-member props

15:58:44 <deiu> ... we're working on it but it's difficult to provide a definite date

... we're working on it but it's difficult to provide a definite date

15:58:59 <nmihindu> Apache Marmotta is also waiting for the spec to become stable

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Apache Marmotta is also waiting for the spec to become stable

15:59:02 <deiu> Arnaud: nmihindu what about you guys? I know you've been working on it

Arnaud Le Hors: nmihindu what about you guys? I know you've been working on it

15:59:27 <deiu> https://rww.io is going to support it too

https://rww.io is going to support it too

15:59:43 <deiu> Arnaud: what about you, betehess? Can you make a claim?

Arnaud Le Hors: what about you, betehess? Can you make a claim?

15:59:48 <deiu> betehess: yes, definitely

Alexandre Bertails: yes, definitely

16:00:08 <deiu> Arnaud: it looks like we might have enough implementations

Arnaud Le Hors: it looks like we might have enough implementations

16:00:23 <betehess> good question from Sandro, as I already know that I won't implement _everything_

Alexandre Bertails: good question from Sandro, as I already know that I won't implement _everything_

16:00:27 <deiu> sandro: we need every feature to implemented...

Sandro Hawke: we need every feature to implemented...

16:00:38 <deiu> ... is everyone going to implement all features?

... is everyone going to implement all features?

16:01:10 <JohnArwe> I think our intent in Lyo is to implement all features

John Arwe: I think our intent in Lyo is to implement all features

16:01:15 <deiu> Arnaud: we might not have 3 implementations that support all features, but we can have all features spread between the 3 implementations

Arnaud Le Hors: we might not have 3 implementations that support all features, but we can have all features spread between the 3 implementations

16:01:38 <nmihindu> sandro, it might be nice to add a another row to the implementations wiki to say which features that they plan to implement

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: sandro, it might be nice to add a another row to the implementations wiki to say which features that they plan to implement

16:01:58 <deiu> ... we should avoid getting stuck in CR

... we should avoid getting stuck in CR

16:02:27 <deiu> ... there are specs that have been stuck in CR for a long time, so let's try to avoid it

... there are specs that have been stuck in CR for a long time, so let's try to avoid it

16:02:44 <deiu> sandro: that has happened before, but they didn't have a product to showcase

Sandro Hawke: that has happened before, but they didn't have a product to showcase

16:02:54 <JohnArwe> can we use the LC2 review period to get the next level of detail from implementers?  what they Intend to implement, even if that's not in-product?

John Arwe: can we use the LC2 review period to get the next level of detail from implementers? what they Intend to implement, even if that's not in-product?

16:02:55 <deiu> ... it's nice to have a validation of the spec

... it's nice to have a validation of the spec

16:03:13 <deiu> ... if people outside IBM won't implement it, then it isn't a good sign

... if people outside IBM won't implement it, then it isn't a good sign

16:03:24 <deiu> Arnaud: ok, let's move on

Arnaud Le Hors: ok, let's move on

16:03:46 <deiu> ... there are deliverables listed in the quick action list

... there are deliverables listed in the quick action list

16:04:09 <deiu> ... this is a way to remind people that we'll need to work on the deliverables

... this is a way to remind people that we'll need to work on the deliverables

16:04:37 <deiu> ... since the charter expires in June, and we've pretty much closed all issues, we should try to focus on deliverables and finish them by the end of May

... since the charter expires in June, and we've pretty much closed all issues, we should try to focus on deliverables and finish them by the end of May

16:04:40 <stevebattle14> q+

Steve Battle: q+

16:04:45 <deiu> ... any activity reports on them so far?

... any activity reports on them so far?

16:04:49 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle14

Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle14

16:05:11 <deiu> stevebattle14: quick update on the use case and req: I've put the spec status as WD

Steve Battle: quick update on the use case and req: I've put the spec status as WD

16:05:38 <deiu> ... we should use WG-notes as a solution to not have it be listed as REC

... we should use WG-notes as a solution to not have it be listed as REC

16:05:46 <betehess> the problem was in the text in the spec

Alexandre Bertails: the problem was in the text in the spec

16:06:06 <deiu> Arnaud: is the use cases and req document published as notes?

Arnaud Le Hors: is the use cases and req document published as notes?

16:06:20 <deiu> sandro: yes, that's a WG notes document

Sandro Hawke: yes, that's a WG notes document

16:06:25 <nmihindu> LDP Primer update - We didn't include the latest changes that we discussed in the primer. When the spec becomes stable with all the resolutions incorporated, so probably next week, we will start working on the primer and modify the examples accordingly.  We might be need a bit of restructuring to fit in basic containers, direct containers, and indirect containers better.

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: LDP Primer update - We didn't include the latest changes that we discussed in the primer. When the spec becomes stable with all the resolutions incorporated, so probably next week, we will start working on the primer and modify the examples accordingly. We might be need a bit of restructuring to fit in basic containers, direct containers, and indirect containers better.

16:06:49 <deiu> Arnaud: I saw an email mentioning that there was a problem with the status of the document

Arnaud Le Hors: I saw an email mentioning that there was a problem with the status of the document

16:07:00 <SteveS> I know the test suite is out-of-sync with the section renumbering of the latest editor's draft

Steve Speicher: I know the test suite is out-of-sync with the section renumbering of the latest editor's draft

16:07:04 <deiu> ... we can figure out the right way to publish

... we can figure out the right way to publish

16:07:18 <betehess> q+

Alexandre Bertails: q+

16:07:44 <deiu> sandro: non-normative should be used instead of non-formative

Sandro Hawke: non-normative should be used instead of informative

16:07:47 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle14

Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle14

16:07:58 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle

Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle

16:08:04 <Arnaud> ack betehess

Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess

16:08:16 <sandro> s/non-formative/informative/
16:08:20 <Arnaud> :)

Arnaud Le Hors: :)

16:08:23 <nmihindu> SteveS, raul was waiting for the spec and numbering to be stable to update the test suite

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: SteveS, raul was waiting for the spec and numbering to be stable to update the test suite

16:08:30 <deiu> betehess: now the editors need to use the right headers in the document

Alexandre Bertails: now the editors need to use the right headers in the document

16:08:31 <ericP> can we use "informative" and "non-informative"?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: can we use "informative" and "non-informative"?

16:08:49 <stevebattle14> will do

Steve Battle: will do

16:08:53 <ericP> where "non-informative" is the opaque stuff that no one ever reads?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: where "non-informative" is the opaque stuff that no one ever reads?

16:08:53 <deiu> ... we can just change the metadata in the database and make sure it's ok in the next published version

... we can just change the metadata in the database and make sure it's ok in the next published version

16:08:54 <Zakim> -Ashok

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok

16:08:55 <SteveS> nmihindu, understand...just sharing that with the WG

Steve Speicher: nmihindu, understand...just sharing that with the WG

16:08:56 <betehess> ericP, ask ian

Alexandre Bertails: ericP, ask ian

16:09:01 <deiu> Arnaud: we can sort that out, it's ok

Arnaud Le Hors: we can sort that out, it's ok

16:09:12 <JohnArwe> @sandro: for those Outside spec writing circles, "informative" (as a positive, avoiding the initial negative non-) has been more readily understood amongst my devs.

John Arwe: @sandro: for those Outside spec writing circles, "informative" (as a positive, avoiding the initial negative non-) has been more readily understood amongst my devs.

16:09:13 <deiu> ... I would like to close the meeting at this point

... I would like to close the meeting at this point

16:09:19 <stevebattle14> We will set specStatus='WG-NOTE'

Steve Battle: We will set specStatus='WG-NOTE'

16:09:19 <ericP> ack me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me

16:09:19 <deiu> ... anything else?

... anything else?

<deiu> topic: Template for RFC

8. Template for RFC

16:09:47 <deiu> ericP: is there a template RFC we can use for 2xx?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: is there a template RFC we can use for 2xx?

16:10:03 <deiu> ... just in terms of the structure

... just in terms of the structure

16:10:21 <deiu> ... "here is a short RFC that defines the new status codes in terms of two existing status codes"

... "here is a short RFC that defines the new status codes in terms of two existing status codes"

16:10:28 <deiu> ... it should have the references at least

... it should have the references at least

16:10:53 <deiu> JohnArwe: we can instantiate the template for our use

John Arwe: we can instantiate the template for our use

16:11:23 <deiu> ... I'm looking at it right now, if you're still around in IRC after the meeting

... I'm looking at it right now, if you're still around in IRC after the meeting

16:11:34 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

16:11:45 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

16:12:05 <deiu> SteveS: I wasn't sure if something that you need is commented out in the spec, since we had 209 commented out there

Steve Speicher: I wasn't sure if something that you need is commented out in the spec, since we had 209 commented out there

16:12:27 <deiu> ericP: my preference is to do this in plain text, RFC-like format

Eric Prud'hommeaux: my preference is to do this in plain text, RFC-like format

16:13:03 <deiu> ... we might actually end up uncommenting 209 from the spec, if we promise that we'll write an RFC for it

... we might actually end up uncommenting 209 from the spec, if we promise that we'll write an RFC for it

16:13:38 <deiu> JohnArwe: you can put it in informational RFC

John Arwe: you can put it in informational RFC

16:13:46 <deiu> ... it's non-normative

... it's non-normative

16:14:23 <pchampin> @ericP how about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585

Pierre-Antoine Champin: @ericP how about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585

16:14:27 <deiu> sandro: why not use a W3C note instead?

Sandro Hawke: why not use a W3C note instead?

16:14:44 <deiu> ... never mind, the 2xx should be an RFC

... never mind, the 2xx should be an RFC

16:15:04 <JohnArwe> @ericp: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25#section-8.2.3

John Arwe: @ericp: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25#section-8.2.3

16:15:06 <deiu> ericP: we will do less work if we start with an RFC (if it progresses reasonably)

Eric Prud'hommeaux: we will do less work if we start with an RFC (if it progresses reasonably)

16:15:29 <JohnArwe> which will make your LAO, then cry a bit

John Arwe: which will make your LAO, then cry a bit

16:15:39 <deiu> Arnaud: we can now close the meeting

Arnaud Le Hors: we can now close the meeting

16:15:51 <betehess> bye!

Alexandre Bertails: bye!

16:15:52 <stevebattle14> bye

Steve Battle: bye

16:15:57 <Zakim> -Andrei

Zakim IRC Bot: -Andrei

16:15:58 <Zakim> -SteveS

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS

16:15:58 <Zakim> -JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe

16:16:00 <Zakim> -Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud

16:16:00 <Zakim> -svillata

Zakim IRC Bot: -svillata

16:16:02 <Zakim> -nmihindu

Zakim IRC Bot: -nmihindu

16:16:02 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

16:16:06 <Zakim> -ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP

16:16:07 <Zakim> -stevebattle14

Zakim IRC Bot: -stevebattle14

16:16:45 <Zakim> -bblfish

Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish

16:16:56 <JohnArwe> @ericp: you might use the Accept-Post draft shell as a wrapper, since that's what you're really after.  erikw emails on LDP list have ptr to it.

John Arwe: @ericp: you might use the Accept-Post draft shell as a wrapper, since that's what you're really after. erikw emails on LDP list have ptr to it.

16:17:14 <bblfish> betehess: are you implementing the code with Spray?

Alexandre Bertails: are you implementing the code with Spray? [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ]

16:17:35 <ericP> JohnArwe, roger -- tx

Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, roger -- tx

16:19:44 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting

Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, end meeting

16:19:44 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

16:19:44 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ericP, Arnaud, pchampin, SteveS, Ashok, Sandro, Andrei, Alexandre, JohnArwe, nmihindu, bblfish, svillata, +44.754.550.aaaa, stevebattle14

Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been ericP, Arnaud, pchampin, SteveS, Ashok, Sandro, Andrei, Alexandre, JohnArwe, nmihindu, bblfish, svillata, +44.754.550.aaaa, stevebattle14

16:19:52 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:19:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-ldp-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-ldp-minutes.html trackbot

16:19:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

16:19:53 <RRSAgent> I see no action items

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items



Formatted by CommonScribe