<hhalpin> anyone want to scribe? :)

<wseltzer> trackbot, start teleconf

<hhalpin> scribe: jcJ_moz

Roll Call

<hhalpin> anyone in IRC?

hhalpin: We're sure nadalin will re-emerge shortly.
... [goes though the agenda]

<alexei-goog> go to webauthn

Document merge (Mike Jones)

mikejones: While flying, had ample time to review the document paragraph by paragraph
... and did reach the conclusion that all normative content was correctly included
... and that the logical merge was sensible rather than a concatenation, so it's OK to delete the old copies

Nadalin: OK, thanks for look at that, Mike
... So that gets us through the PR doc merge
... is Dirk here?

vijay: He's not here, but what needs to happen next is a PR to remove the old documents

Nadalin: Please take that action item, vijay
... Mike, you're OK with the content, but you're now going to look at it from an editorial standpoint?

mikejones: Yes, but wanted to unblock the WG first

Nadalin: Yes, that gets us to where we can start to edit the document now. Do you have a timeline ... we're shooting for May for a first public draft

mikejones: I expect to be able to do that [review] by the end of IETF

Nadalin: I appreciate you taking care of this [mikejones]
... So that gets us through the PR from Dirk
... and we'll get another for deleting the subdirs
... and that gets us to the naming updates

jcj_moz: The PR for the Nomenclature is updated w/ vijay's and jeffh's comments

vijay: Didn't see the update

hhalpin: we'll test it here

<vgb> jcj_moz: was updated this morning. also have a few other editorial changes, it's a big PR so wait for it before doing editorial review

mikejones: When is the PR for nomenclature to land?

jcj_moz: Would like to merge the TravisCI PR (54) soon to eliminate the spurious red x's
... and also we have the simple PR from wseltzer #49 to fix the license

jeffh: I've joined
... I'm missing context in terms of what use of the name we're talking about
... if it's just a reference, it's no big deal

Nadalin: We just want to make sure that FIDO is okay with references

jeffh: I don't think we need to check for that

Nadalin: OK, we have some open issues; there are 49 issues in Github now.

<hhalpin> FYI, the webhook for githubn notifications has been open and should be working, sending test messages to list

Vijay: I went in this morning and added a couple ffrom TAG feedback which we should address at some point. We should set up some time with the TAG to go through the whole thing again
... the eTLD+1 was the big conceptual item, but I'm sure there were others
... That's something I'm planning to look at over the next couple weeks, to see how much the TAG feedback we can address so we can go back to the TAG and say 'here's an updated spec, can you look at it?'

Nadalin: Can you assign these to yourself, so someone is working on it?

Vijay: OK
... Can do in the next couple weeks

Nadalin: We'll have to address the TAG feedback before the public release
... So you'll take on the issues for the TAG review comments, and you'll assign yourself ones you opened?

Vijay: Yes

wseltzer: And we can help coordination to get back on the TAG's agenda. They meet weekly, and they have a f2f in London this week, and I chatted with them about these issues

Nadalin: OK, so we should shoot for a couple weeks, maybe 3 weeks from now
... which will be close to the Plenary timeframe, but we should resolve the issues here
... Jeff, did you go back and assign the ones you opened back to yourself?

jeffh: No

Nadalin: OK, can you do that?
... and the same with J.C.

jeffh: OK

jcj_moz: Yes

Nadalin: wseltzer, you're good to go on the license, right?

wseltzer: Yes, and I put in a PR

Nadalin: OK, so we'll review that
... Jeff, will you take care of the examples? I guess with the names?

Jeffh: Sure

jcj_moz: There's already a PR for that, #57, opened last night

Nadalin: I see

jcj_moz: So we can merge the PRs for the License and the TravisCI work can merge during or after the call

wseltzer: Those are editorial changes, so don't need the whole WG's call for consensus

Nadalin: We should set up some milestones in here for the first public draft

jeffh: It's really easy to make a milestone

Nadalin: I'll take that action

mikejones: Thanks Tony

Nadalin: So I'll try to tag the minimal that we want to get done now that the merge is done
... Is Adam on the phone?

apowers: Yes

Nadalin: There's an issue about unspecified error conditions, can you assign this to yourself?

apowers: Sure, but I don't know how to resolve it

vijay: I'll take a first pass

Nadalin: Did we have an owner for the terminology section?

jcj_moz: Yes, me

Nadalin: Yes, I see you're assigned
... That's all I saw in the open issues that puzzled me
... Does anyone else have any questions on open issues?
... I want to get these assigned so we know who's working on them; who we can chase after to get things closed out
... And I'll create the first milestone to get that done

wseltzer: The point of the public draft is to have all the issues identified, not necessarily resolved

Nadalin: agreed
... That's all I had on the open issues today. Does anyone want to discuss any particular aspect of an open issue right now?
... So we'll get all the open issues assigned and track them
... Does anyone else have other things they want to discuss?

mikejones: We were going to determine whether we wanted to meet at TPAC

Nadalin: I did submit a request to have a session during TPAC so we're covered

hhalpin: We have to have an answer in 2 weeks

Nadalin: How many people would attend?
... How many would attend?

<rolf> where and when is the TPAC meeting?

Nadalin: Is there anybody that would not attend; this would be the Plenary in Lisbon in Sept?

Vijay: 19-23 Sept in Lisbon

Nadalin: Vijay could you attend?

Vijay: Probably but it's too far out. I don't know of any blockers. When is the FIDO one?

alexei-goog: Beginning of October in Hong Kong

wseltzer: A note about TPAC: We typically have both a plenary day in the middle, and WG meetings and W3C tries to get as many groups as can together in the same place, which causes annoying conflicts but also opportunities to meet other groups like TAG or WebAppSec
... so if there are coordination questions it's a useful opportunity as well

Vijay: Those would be the 2 big things for TPAC. Another session with the TAG, and secondly align with credential management in webappsec

Nadalin: Is there a list of groups that have submitted for WG meetings at TPAC?

wseltzer: Yes, there is someplace. Let me see if I can find it

hhalpin: Usually the goal is to avoid conflicts

Nadalin: I just want to be sure WebAppSec is meeting

wseltzer: They've talked about meeting but need to ensure the chairs filled out the forms as well
... and there's an option in the form to say which groups you don't want to conflict with

Nadalin: So our form is in, and I put down webappsec, so we want them to make it useful

wseltzer: I'll remind them, and privacy is meeting
... Yeah, Brad just asked the WebAppSec group whether folks have a preference for beginning or end of TPAC week, indicating he's planning to submit for a meeting there

<hhalpin> WebEx should work over IP

<hhalpin> if you can get the Java client running

Nadalin: If there's nothing else, I'd like to adjourn the meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/consensys/consensus/
Found Scribe: jcJ_moz
Inferring ScribeNick: jcj_moz
Present: jcj_moz hhalpin selfissued paul_grassi JeffH RobTrace vgb apowers jeffh

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

Got date from IRC log name: 30 Mar 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/30-webauthn-minutes.html
People with action items: