14:59:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:59:02 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-ldp-irc
14:59:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:04 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:59:06 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:59:06 <Zakim> 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
14:59:26 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp
14:59:50 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:05 <Zakim> +??P6
15:00:20 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:00:30 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
15:00:30 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:00:45 <stevebattle14> stevebattle14 has joined #ldp
15:00:48 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:00:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], ericP (muted), Arnaud, pchampin, SteveS
15:01:16 <Ashok> zakim, IPCaller is me
15:01:16 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it
15:01:43 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:01:46 <Zakim> +Andrei
15:02:01 <betehess> Zakim, Andrei also has Alexandre
15:02:01 <Zakim> +Alexandre; got it
15:04:29 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
15:04:38 <svillata> svillata has joined #ldp
15:04:42 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
15:04:51 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
15:04:52 <deiu> scribe: Andrei Sambra
15:05:00 <deiu> scribenick: deiu
15:06:02 <deiu> Arnaud: let's get started; I'm not sure we'll need 1h30
15:06:13 <betehess> looks ok to me
15:06:27 <deiu> ... approval of minutes from Jan 27th, everyone ok with it?
15:06:33 <deiu> ... no objections -> minutes approved
15:06:41 <Zakim> +??P4
15:06:52 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P4 is me
15:06:52 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:06:56 <deiu> ... next meeting is set for next week
15:07:03 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
15:07:03 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
15:07:19 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:07:19 <deiu> ... maybe we can reduce the call length to 1h, depending on content
15:07:35 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:07:40 <deiu> Topic: pending actions
15:07:51 <deiu> ericP: Action-123 is pending review
15:08:05 <deiu> ... it is still open for people to review it
15:08:25 <Zakim> +??P18
15:08:35 <bblfish> hi
15:08:41 <deiu> Arnaud: any other actions that people can claim victory on?
15:08:48 <svillata> Zakim, ??P18 is me
15:08:48 <Zakim> +svillata; got it
15:09:00 <JohnArwe> s/ericP/Arnaud/
15:09:06 <ericP> ack me
15:09:18 <deiu> Arnaud: what about Action-118?
15:09:30 <JohnArwe> 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
15:09:30 <trackbot> 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
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?
15:10:10 <deiu> ... 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
15:11:01 <deiu> sandro: can we do 2xx later?
15:11:13 <Zakim> + +44.754.550.aaaa
15:11:56 <deiu> ericP: now the spec says "use 2xx" and somehow involve the IETF to standardize it
15:12:09 <bblfish> q+
15:12:19 <stevebattle14> zakim aaaa is me
15:12:28 <deiu> sandro: it may take some implementations before IETF can move on it
15:12:44 <deiu> ericP: we can exploit the W3C's influence (?)
15:12:55 <deiu> ericP, we can just leave it there for now
15:13:05 <Arnaud> 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
15:13:30 <deiu> ericP: do you mean the TAG list?
15:13:33 <deiu> bblfish: yes
15:13:43 <stevebattle14> zakim, .aaaa is me
15:13:43 <Zakim> sorry, stevebattle14, I do not recognize a party named '.aaaa'
15:13:59 <stevebattle14> zakim, aaaa is me
15:13:59 <Zakim> +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
15:14:04 <deiu> issue-93?
15:14:04 <trackbot> issue-93 -- Accept and Auth -- raised
15:14:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/93
15:14:17 <deiu> Arnaud: 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
15:14:55 <deiu> ... 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?
15:15:40 <bblfish> 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
15:16:03 <deiu> ... 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
15:16:31 <deiu> ... 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
15:17:01 <deiu> ... 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
15:17:29 <bblfish> q+
15:17:35 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:17:59 <deiu> bblfish: 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)
15:18:54 <deiu> ... 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)
15:19:34 <SteveS> q+
15:19:52 <Arnaud> 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
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
15:20:37 <deiu> ... 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
15:21:09 <Arnaud> 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
15:21:22 <deiu> bblfish: 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
15:22:12 <JohnArwe> +1
15:22:13 <deiu> ... I'm just trying to address timbl's concerns
15:22:18 <ericP> +1
15:22:19 <SteveS> +1 think it is good to keep a must and provide best practices/guidance
15:22:19 <deiu> +1
15:22:19 <svillata> +1
15:22:22 <betehess> +1
15:22:26 <pchampin> +0
15:22:31 <sandro> +1
15:22:47 <nmihindu> +1
15:22:57 <Arnaud> 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!
15:23:35 <deiu> ... let's move on to the spec's status
15:23:43 <deiu> Topic: Spec status
15:24:00 <deiu> ... 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
15:24:39 <deiu> ... 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
15:25:23 <deiu> ... 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
15:26:17 <deiu> 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?"
15:26:56 <betehess> q+
15:27:05 <JohnArwe> 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
15:27:15 <Arnaud> ack betehess
15:28:11 <deiu> Arnaud: let's finish with the spec status first
15:28:32 <deiu> ... 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
15:29:05 <deiu> ... how does everyone feel about the schedule? is that doable?
15:29:23 <SteveS> I can make it work
15:29:27 <deiu> ... any comments on how much time people need to review the spec?
15:29:30 <betehess> 1 week to review should be fine
15:29:40 <betehess> but we may have some feedback to discuss about
15:29:49 <deiu> Ashok: 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
15:30:39 <deiu> ... but I'm more interested in what the group members have to say about it
15:31:04 <deiu> ... not much reaction...
15:31:08 <pchampin> not sure, but 1 week should be ok
15:31:24 <svillata> 1 week is ok
15:31:27 <ericP> 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.
15:31:45 <deiu> ... we can figure it out next week
15:31:58 <deiu> ... 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
15:32:38 <deiu> Topic: f2f meeting
15:32:59 <deiu> 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
15:33:32 <SteveS> Conflict for me
15:33:33 <bblfish> what is the aim of the f2f?
15:33:35 <deiu> ... is there any conflict for that period?
15:33:44 <deiu> ... for the 1st week of April
15:34:03 <deiu> ... we first need to decide on the date before picking the venue
15:34:11 <pchampin> that's just before WWW2014, isn't it?
15:34:23 <ericP> would decisions made on 1 April be binding?
15:35:17 <bblfish> q+
15:35:17 <deiu> Arnaud: 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
15:35:40 <deiu> SteveS: I have a meeting in that period and there's also the WWW2014 conf.
15:35:42 <nmihindu> pchampin, WWW2014 -> April 7 - 11
15:35:51 <ericP> co-lo with WWW?
15:36:01 <ericP> oh, i think it's in asia, iirc
15:36:04 <deiu> bblfish: what is the aim of the meeting?
15:36:27 <deiu> Arnaud: to deal with any comments/issues we get out of the LC
15:36:28 <bblfish> 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
15:37:03 <deiu> bblfish: 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
15:37:28 <SteveS> 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
15:37:52 <deiu> ... it seems we have nothing before the week of April 14th
15:37:58 <Ashok> 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
15:38:19 <SteveS> not going to WWW2014
15:38:32 <Ashok> me neither
15:38:37 <deiu> ... there is also the possibility to exit CL right away, but anyway, there isn't much choice
15:39:03 <ericP> 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?
15:39:15 <ericP> rbing it
15:39:16 <ericP> bring it
15:39:24 <SteveS> Week of April 14th could work for me
15:39:36 <Ashok> q+
15:39:41 <deiu> Arnaud: we can look at it again next week
15:39:51 <bblfish> q-
15:39:56 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
15:39:57 <deiu> ... 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
15:41:15 <deiu> ... bblfish offered to host it in Paris
15:41:26 <ericP> paris would be just about doable for me
15:41:34 <deiu> bblfish: Oracle also has offices in Paris :)
15:41:36 <ericP> 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
15:41:40 <JohnArwe>  be able to say we have the authority to say how the values are interpreted.
15:41:50 <deiu> Arnaud: 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
15:42:00 <deiu> betehess: 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
15:42:42 <deiu> Arnaud: 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
15:43:38 <JohnArwe> 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
15:44:23 <betehess> 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
15:44:43 <betehess> q+
15:44:56 <Arnaud> ack betehess
15:45:10 <deiu> betehess: 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)
15:45:34 <deiu> ... 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
15:46:00 <JohnArwe> 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
15:46:27 <deiu> ... 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
15:46:41 <betehess> @JohnArwe, this comes at the cost of longer "keywords"
15:46:58 <deiu> ... 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?
15:47:25 <deiu> Topic: 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)
15:47:46 <deiu> Arnaud: 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
15:48:43 <deiu> ... 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
15:49:11 <deiu> ... 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
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
15:50:10 <sandro> q+ to ask about client libraries
15:50:11 <deiu> ... 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
15:51:22 <deiu> ... 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?
15:51:52 <Arnaud> q?
15:51:55 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:51:55 <Zakim> 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
15:52:39 <deiu> ... I want to be able to traverse a container for example
15:52:57 <ericP> 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
15:53:19 <deiu> ... 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
15:53:35 <deiu> ... I'd also like to see a test suite
15:53:39 <SteveS> sooner than later
15:53:40 <JohnArwe> @sandro: "traversing" => membership triples, containment triples, either?  or also non-member props?
15:54:08 <deiu> Arnaud: 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.
15:54:29 <deiu> ... 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
15:55:17 <deiu> ... 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
15:55:38 <JohnArwe> @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?
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.
15:56:03 <ericP> @JohnArwe, i mean the actual endpoints
15:56:08 <ericP> ack me
15:56:08 <deiu> ... 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
15:56:10 <JohnArwe> @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
15:56:15 <SteveS> 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?
15:57:02 <deiu> SteveS, 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?
15:57:56 <deiu> SteveS: we're pushing it and we have a lot of motivation to have it implemented
15:58:07 <deiu> ... 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.
15:58:38 <JohnArwe> ...those = containment, non-member props
15:58:44 <deiu> ... 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
15:59:02 <deiu> Arnaud: 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
15:59:43 <deiu> Arnaud: what about you, betehess? Can you make a claim?
15:59:48 <deiu> betehess: yes, definitely
16:00:08 <deiu> Arnaud: 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_
16:00:27 <deiu> sandro: we need every feature to implemented...
16:00:38 <deiu> ... is everyone going to implement all features?
16:01:10 <JohnArwe> 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
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
16:01:58 <deiu> ... 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
16:02:44 <deiu> sandro: 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?
16:02:55 <deiu> ... 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
16:03:24 <deiu> Arnaud: ok, let's move on
16:03:46 <deiu> ... 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
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
16:04:40 <stevebattle14> q+
16:04:45 <deiu> ... any activity reports on them so far?
16:04:49 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle14
16:05:11 <deiu> stevebattle14: 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
16:05:46 <betehess> the problem was in the text in the spec
16:06:06 <deiu> Arnaud: is the use cases and req document published as notes?
16:06:20 <deiu> sandro: 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.
16:06:49 <deiu> Arnaud: 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
16:07:04 <deiu> ... we can figure out the right way to publish
16:07:18 <betehess> q+
16:07:44 <deiu> sandro: non-normative should be used instead of non-formative
16:07:47 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle14
16:07:58 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
16:08:04 <Arnaud> ack betehess
16:08:16 <sandro> s/non-formative/informative/
16:08:20 <Arnaud> :)
16:08:23 <nmihindu> 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
16:08:31 <ericP> can we use "informative" and "non-informative"?
16:08:49 <stevebattle14> will do
16:08:53 <ericP> 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
16:08:54 <Zakim> -Ashok
16:08:55 <SteveS> nmihindu, understand...just sharing that with the WG
16:08:56 <betehess> ericP, ask ian
16:09:01 <deiu> Arnaud: 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.
16:09:13 <deiu> ... I would like to close the meeting at this point
16:09:19 <stevebattle14> We will set specStatus='WG-NOTE'
16:09:19 <ericP> ack me
16:09:19 <deiu> ... anything else?
16:09:47 <deiu> ericP: is there a template RFC we can use for 2xx?
16:10:03 <deiu> ... 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"
16:10:28 <deiu> ... it should have the references at least
16:10:53 <deiu> JohnArwe: 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
16:11:34 <SteveS> q+
16:11:45 <Arnaud> 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
16:12:27 <deiu> ericP: 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
16:13:38 <deiu> JohnArwe: you can put it in informational RFC
16:13:46 <deiu> ... it's non-normative
16:14:23 <pchampin> @ericP how about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585
16:14:27 <deiu> sandro: why not use a W3C note instead?
16:14:44 <deiu> ... 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
16:15:06 <deiu> ericP: 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
16:15:39 <deiu> Arnaud: we can now close the meeting
16:15:51 <betehess> bye!
16:15:52 <stevebattle14> bye
16:15:57 <Zakim> -Andrei
16:15:58 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:15:58 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
16:16:00 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:16:00 <Zakim> -svillata
16:16:02 <Zakim> -nmihindu
16:16:02 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:16:06 <Zakim> -ericP
16:16:07 <Zakim> -stevebattle14
16:16:45 <Zakim> -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.
16:17:14 <bblfish> betehess: are you implementing the code with Spray?
16:17:35 <ericP> JohnArwe, roger -- tx
16:19:44 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
16:19:44 <trackbot> 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
16:19:52 <trackbot> 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
16:19:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:19:53 <RRSAgent> I see no action items