17:01:56 RRSAgent has joined #social 17:01:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-social-irc 17:01:57 lol csarven++ 17:01:58 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:01:58 Zakim has joined #social 17:02:00 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:02:00 ok, trackbot 17:02:01 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:02:01 Date: 11 October 2016 17:02:06 did it just go quiet from muting? 17:02:11 or did it just go quiet for me 17:02:11 yes 17:02:15 ok cool. 17:02:16 present+ 17:02:17 present+ 17:02:18 regrets+ 17:02:21 present+ 17:02:21 present+ 17:03:10 present+ 17:03:13 I can scribe assuming I can continue to hear 17:03:31 scribenick: cwebber2 17:03:41 uhhh okay now who is volunteering to chair? ;) 17:03:50 rhiaro? ;) 17:04:41 pretty sure tantek is planning on making it to this call, he updated the schedule yesterday and everything 17:04:53 yeah I thought so 17:05:13 I don't seem to be able to dial in ... you guys still in silence? 17:06:31 KevinMarks has joined #social 17:06:35 or was it gravity? 17:06:54 present+ 17:07:11 I'm at a conference so am irc only 17:08:17 rhiaro, very very bad network artifacts 17:08:27 Did anyone else hear me? 17:08:40 pretty sure you're unintelligible to everyone 17:09:18 KevinMarks2 has joined #social 17:10:09 or is it a robot that sounds like rhiaro? 17:10:24 KevinMarks has joined #social 17:10:28 do androids dream of electric sheep? 17:10:43 do androids dream of activity streams? 17:11:13 do electric sheep federate over http? 17:12:18 Google's bot likes electric sheep 17:12:59 sandro: I guess I can try to chair a quick meeting 17:13:00 chair: sandro 17:13:15 cwebber2++ 17:13:15 cwebber2 has 74 karma 17:13:40 sandro: let's skip the administrivia. the one thing I'm seeing... we're delaying the CR transition votes on LDN and AP a week for a variety of reasons mentioned in the agenda. Anything anyone has to say about those? 17:14:17 rhiaro: we're basically waiting for review from a few people who said they would, we got the i18n review, they're going to confirm they're happy with the changes, and we have one security issue with is 43. we think we don't need to do anything but need to run it by the group 17:14:21 https://github.com/w3c/ldn/issues/43 17:14:29 sandro: that's the same one basically as the webmention behind the firewall? 17:14:59 rhiaro: yes, and the person said "if this is acceptable then that's fine, you should just mention it in the security considerations section". I don't know if we need to say it twice 17:15:08 sandro: where did you end up on the firwall thing aaronpk ? 17:15:12 aaronpk: yes there's a section 17:15:21 rhiaro: did you have it in security considerations as well? 17:15:28 https://plus.google.com/+KevinMarks/posts/MXYXp9NEkcn 17:15:29 aaronpk: let me check 17:15:35 https://webmention.net/draft/#limit-access-to-protected-resources 17:15:36 [Aaron Parecki] Webmention 17:15:45 aaronpk: I think it's just in the security considerations section, here's the link 17:15:59 rhiaro: yes I think we can put it in security considerations. But security considerations is non-normative right? 17:16:15 sandro: they normally would be, because they're keeping people informed 17:16:23 rhiaro: is that the right thing to do for this issue? 17:16:35 sandro: iiuc you're not telling anyone to do anything, with exception of localhost? 17:16:44 rhiaro: yes, says you should not send it on localhost 17:16:55 sandro: so I guess security considerations is normative in that case, which I think is ok? 17:17:02 sandro: it doesn't say it's not normative... 17:17:31 rhiaro: I can look at refactoring into the security considerations section, that would be helpful, maybe aaronpk can say something? 17:17:50 sandro: anything else about LDN, rhiaro ? 17:18:05 rhiaro: I think that's it right now... just request that everyone gives it one final read-through next week 17:18:14 rhiaro: it's not hugely changed, just editorial pretty much 17:18:29 http://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/#targeting-and-discovery 17:18:36 sandro: you wanted authorization to publish a new WD of social web protocols? 17:18:48 rhiaro: yes, that's right, there's some substantial changes esp re: LDN 17:18:56 rhiaro: second paragraph of that section 17:19:24 tantek has joined #social 17:19:59 PROPOSAL: Publish new WD of SWP 17:20:08 +1 17:20:17 +1 17:20:18 +1 17:20:18 +1 17:20:26 present+ 17:20:29 Zakim, who is here? 17:20:29 Present: aaronpk, csarven, cwebber, rhiaro, bengo, sandro, tantek 17:20:31 On IRC I see tantek, KevinMarks, Zakim, RRSAgent, annbass, bengo, akuckartz, jasnell, timbl, pdurbin, raucao, wilkie, bigbluehat, KjetilK, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, strugee, 17:20:31 ... cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, csarven, rhiaro, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot 17:20:31 +1 17:20:32 +1 17:20:41 RESOLVED: Publish new WD of SWP 17:20:56 +1 17:21:06 scribenick: rhiaro 17:21:14 scribe: cwebber2 17:21:21 scribe: sandro 17:21:27 +1 on SWP item 17:21:30 cwebber2: I got a lot of feedback, working on it 17:21:36 .. including i18n 17:21:47 .. also had a hard drive cache 17:21:53 s/cache/crash 17:21:55 q+ to ask for new WD of LDN as well 17:21:55 .. next week should be okay 17:22:15 .. so security feedback yet 17:22:19 .. is that good news? 17:22:43 sandro: are you making changes? 17:22:52 cwebber2: just editorial, in change log 17:23:07 cwebber2: some comments are questions about why things are done 17:23:20 KevinMarks has joined #social 17:23:27 sandro: when is a good time to re-read it? 17:23:52 cwebber2: now seems fine, but I guess you could wait for the weekend 17:24:09 sandro: any other comments/questions? 17:24:17 tantek: That sounds good! 17:24:51 tantek: Can you capture the feedback & issues raised elsewhere in github, so we can see how ti's processed and handled, and to give us evidence of wide review for W3C process 17:25:08 tant: not just for "hey why did you do it this way" 17:25:15 s/just// 17:26:01 cwebber2: I talk to people giving feedback about making them public, and I'm using a public wiki page, more than issues for those. 17:26:27 sandro: link? 17:26:28 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/ActivityPub_wide_review 17:26:52 cwebber2: that's just a little bit of it, so far 17:27:29 cwebber2: please read it soon! Before Monday at least. 17:27:31 +1 17:27:51 https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/#change-log-Changes-from-26-September-2016-WD-to-this-version 17:28:04 scribenick: cwebber2 17:28:08 topic: new draft of LDN 17:28:15 sandro: Amy asked for new WD of LDN? 17:28:24 rhiaro: yes, we'd like to get that out asap for the changes done 17:28:31 PROPOSAL: Publish new WD of LDN 17:28:33 +1 17:28:36 +1 17:28:39 +1 17:28:39 +1 17:28:40 +!1 17:28:41 Fine you get my vote 17:28:41 +1 17:28:41 +1 17:28:42 +1 17:29:01 Noting that csarven did all the work 17:29:18 RESOLVED: Publish new WD of LDN 17:29:35 sandro: next on agenda is tracking document status 17:29:49 ... gonna throw this open, anyone got something to discuss? 17:30:01 timbl has joined #social 17:30:12 sandro: I think I heard half of a tantek but couldn't quite make it out 17:30:51 tantek: I'm coming through authoring 17:31:45 sandro: not a good week for telecommunications! 17:32:02 tantek has joined #social 17:32:08 sandro: I'm inclined to say we're done for today unless someone has something they can communicate? 17:32:13 tantek: I can hear you sandro 17:32:23 sandro: try counting to 10 17:32:26 hahaha 17:32:30 hahaha 17:32:31 tantek: 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 17:32:31 1..2..5.. 17:32:37 great test 17:32:45 I heard 1,2,5, Q, vvv 10 17:32:55 missed 6 and 9 17:32:57 lol 17:32:59 i like this test 17:33:01 on IRC now 17:33:04 tantek: missing 6 and 9 17:33:19 barely 17:33:24 tantek: I'm going to try... on irc... did any of that come through 17:33:59 tantek: at the face to face we stated that we'd be trying to keep pushing CR specs to PR and I want to keep asking those questions of those CR specs if we have editors for them 17:34:08 KevinMarks2 has joined #social 17:34:14 sandro: we have aaronpk, not james or evan 17:34:26 tantek: from now till we run out of telcons we should try to check all the items 17:34:32 ... so we can do a transition call 17:34:39 I'm on irc, not on the call 17:34:40 KevinMarks has joined #social 17:34:45 bong, bing, bon 17:34:45 --- missing all this --- 17:34:51 if there's something that needs my attention please just mention me here 17:34:59 sorry; I'm gonna drop off .. 17:35:24 sandro: I didn't hear that but got the gist that you want to do the CR to PR part of the agenda 17:35:26 jasnell, we need you or Evan on a telcon for handling AS2 CR to PR next steps 17:35:27 thanks jasnell -- the question is how AS2 is doing on the test suite completeness and test results 17:35:39 sandro: I just asked in IRC ^^^ 17:35:40 jasnell, can you schedule your time for a future telcon? 17:35:50 sandro: and for aaronpk, did anything change for the face to face? 17:35:52 I don't know what the current status of the test suite is. I can schedule time for next weeks call 17:36:24 jasnell, thank you, appreciated. 17:36:36 that'd be great, jasnell, 17:36:41 aaronpk: webmention, did a couple of updates to the report indicating more clearly the test coverage results... otherwise, not much changed, and on micropub I've been continuing to work on adding tests and collecting implementation reports now. Hoping by next week to have all that wrapped up. 17:36:50 jasnell, in short, be prepared to answer / work on the following questions for next week for AS2: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-11#CR_to_PR_next_steps 17:37:15 sandro: any other plans? 17:37:22 aaronpk: no (?) 17:37:29 sandro: are these features you implemented 17:37:34 aaronpk: not implemented by me 17:37:41 sandro: would it be harmful to remove them? 17:37:45 aaronpk, are these at-risk features? 17:38:15 aaronpk: no, it would be helpful to indicate that we added some on on our own (???) and one about CSRF(?) protection 17:38:38 aaronpk: the CSRF one says that if only the endpoint accepts auth, and then it's a SHOULD to (???) 17:39:03 aaronpk: come to think of it, one thing that could be done is figure out who does it 17:39:10 sandro: some people are doing authenticated webmention? 17:39:28 jasnell_ has joined #social 17:39:34 aaronpk: I'm not sure. I know my endpoint did by default, but when that happens the framework just does this automatically 17:39:41 is that implementation guidance re: form captured in the document? 17:39:47 sandro: ok, thinking about if someone is actually doing this would help 17:40:20 tantek: that would be good to capture... especially the CSRF implementation, is that something everyone doing a web form to webmentions has to support? 17:40:30 aaronpk: only if your form happens to also have session cookies 17:40:50 aaronpk: if they get a session cookie after they log in, the browser submits the session cookie along with the form... 17:41:00 tantek: so they should be or not? 17:41:23 aaronpk: if you do support session cookies, then if your endpoint handles that session cookie it should also do csrf protection(???) 17:41:33 tantek: I feel like we've seen otehr examples of sites doing this 17:41:39 ... could you research it? 17:41:41 aaronpk: yes ok 17:42:12 aaronpk: I guess if I implement this, does that count as a second implementation? 17:42:15 sandro: technically yes 17:42:23 I'm thinking maybe adactio.com posts have a form like that (and https and session cookies), and https://kylewm.com/ as well 17:42:25 ... you still need one other person to implement it 17:42:40 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kH385v6skHbMre_bmz1Vyma8BDemt7WHlM0ZQwVXBOo/edit?usp=sharing 17:42:54 aaronpk: I'll share this spreadsheet again, but every webmention endpoint has at least one other implementer. 17:43:57 sandro: ok how is micropub doing it? 17:44:10 aaronpk: micropub test suite is making progress 17:44:17 what about "periodically re-verified"? (back on webmention when you have a moment) 17:44:19 https://micropub.net/draft/#feature 17:44:22 [Aaron Parecki] Micropub 17:44:27 ... so there's a giant list of micropub features 17:44:34 ... which I'm working on adding to a report 17:44:39 ... as well as tests 17:44:45 sandro: sounds good 17:44:53 ... at this point you don't know how good the coverage is? 17:44:58 aaronpk: right 17:45:08 tantek: did you talk about the periodic reverification in webmention? 17:45:21 aaronpk: with that one, there's one implementation of it, but I'm not aware anyone else is doing it 17:45:26 ... so I guess my plan is same as that 17:45:36 ... try to track down everyone doing it, if not, I can implement 17:45:42 tantek: is this MAY or SHOULD in the spec? 17:45:48 sandro: I think that wouldn't stop us? 17:45:56 ... certainly nice to have it documented that it's used but 17:46:28 tantek: definitely not strictly required. from the webmention test results, maybe push the MAY to the bottom of the list or something, to clearly indicate those are tests for MAY in the spec 17:46:38 ... that's good, but we need to make sure we call it out. 17:46:44 ... it's good implementation feedback. 17:46:58 ... then I didn't hear sandro, did you ask if there are other normative issues open in webmention? 17:47:00 sandro: didn't ask 17:47:05 tantek: are there any aaronpk? 17:47:16 aaronpk: no new ones, in fact only one still open is waiting for commenter 17:47:19 tantek: that's fine 17:47:31 ... do you kinwo if we can use github open/closed issues sandro ? 17:47:37 sandro: as long as you tag them... 17:47:42 ... you can summarize counts, etc. 17:47:52 tantek: we already covered the feature coverage? 17:48:11 aaronpk: I believe there's still a few things in the spec not directly tested in the test suite, but are based on input 17:48:22 tantek: ok, those are sugar(?) must requirements? 17:48:26 aaronpk: yes some are 17:48:41 tantek: you might want to call those out in the test results since they're self-reported rather than from test ssuite 17:48:48 ... in case anyone wants to drill down on thsose 17:49:20 sandro: tantek want to chair now? 17:49:24 tantek: sure. 17:49:46 ... aaronpk, if that's something you can call out, that would be useful to group them as self-reported as opposed to from tests 17:49:48 aaronpk: can do 17:49:58 tantek: if there's any specific question on those we can dig into them as needed 17:50:20 ... sandro, it sounds like webmention is close? 17:50:22 sandro: yep 17:50:44 tantek: ok, magbe we get another spec ready, then go forward? shoudl we chunk them? 17:50:52 sandro: yes would like to chunk as much as possible 17:51:06 tantek: I tend to agree, the AC tends to prefer to have as few votes as possible 17:51:15 ... especially those who are grouped by related, etc 17:51:18 ... that's all I had 17:51:28 q+ to ask sandro about the process for publishing notes 17:51:50 ... sounds like with tweaks to implementation reports aaronpk produced, we should be able to take to PR... right sandro ? 17:51:52 sandro: yep 17:51:56 tantek: ok good 17:52:16 tantek: are there any normative issues on that aaronpk? 17:52:26 https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/33 17:52:33 aaronpk: only that this one, about what's the process for extending 17:52:40 ... everything else is resolved 17:52:49 (aside: at the f2f we scheduled 90 min for this telcon - forgot to remind folks of that earlier) 17:52:58 q? 17:53:08 rhiaro was that for webmention or micropub? 17:53:58 tantek: this one, given the challenges we've done with how to do extensibility, we should make sure it's clear 17:54:37 ... especially since it's for looking at how to do things external from the working group, which is exactly where we're likely to see requests from. if there can be some good instructions... it could be informative, as long as the mechanism works 17:54:45 ... sandro what do you think? 17:54:55 sandro: I didn't follow what it was 17:55:30 tantek: if there's an extensibility point in micropub for mp-instructions by the endpoint instead of content of the post, they're specified in micropub as mp-syndicate2, there's a comment about how people can add more 17:55:42 ... sounds like request outside the working group is on how group might create new one 17:55:54 s/syndicate2/syndicate-to 17:56:03 ... I wanted to draw point to how we can point to how we did it for as2 17:56:25 sandro: I think the right to thing is to say there's some relatively informal group... should it be the same group as as2, or someone else? 17:56:40 ... I don't know if it's the same people or not... I lean towards them being the same but I don't know 17:56:50 aaronpk: there's also the microformats process which is relatively self-governing 17:57:04 ... should we put it in a wiki or a new place? 17:57:16 tantek: do you mean the process for vocabulary that h-entry has, for exmaple? 17:57:24 aaronpk: yes we've been working on formalizing that 17:57:42 tantek: yes there's another way to address it to say there's an external place to say people can file issues 17:57:52 ... not sure that's been done in an external w3c group before... 17:58:06 sandro: I don't think that's been done, could be a bit of an uphill battle, but might be worth getting working 17:58:14 ... might have been done in some other context 17:58:51 tantek: I think if you can point to a process on how to do things for the mp-* extensions, could be good to say here's a lightweight process on how to formalize/make official 17:59:09 ... ok that was the one issue 17:59:29 aaronpk: only other question I had on MP is, I believe there will be less changes that there may need to be a new CR? 17:59:37 ... what's the process there 17:59:51 tantek: if that's the case, do you have an ED with a ? to go to CR? 17:59:55 https://micropub.net/draft/#changes-from-16-august-2016-cr-to-this-version 17:59:57 [Aaron Parecki] Micropub 17:59:59 aaronpk: yes, ^^^^ 17:59:59 s/?/changes section 18:00:08 aaronpk: a lot is changes to examples 18:00:31 shepazu has joined #social 18:00:37 ... image alt-text is completely new, requires changes to implementations 18:00:49 I sort of wish W3C had a process of noting "references" in the bottom of specs automatically, thus any future Notes / Specs would be listed automatically. This could inclcude community group published docs which then becomes a location for public extensions that is actually still under w3c control 18:00:52 tantek: could you ??? these changes in the normative and editorial section 18:00:59 aaronpk: sure 18:01:05 s/???/cluster 18:01:18 ben_thatmustbeme, absolutely. They coukld even use WebMention 18:01:37 sandro: aaronpk did you say you have to leave top of the hour? 18:01:49 aaronpk: yes, I will work on those after this next meeting 18:02:00 tantek: do we want a proposal to go to CR pending those changes? 18:02:17 tantek: publish a new cr 18:02:27 sandro: are they normative? 18:02:31 aaronpk: there's at least one 18:02:40 sandro: normative changes technically need a new transition call 18:02:47 tantek: can be done by email? 18:02:54 sandro: maybe, needs director approval 18:03:02 tantek: we need to agree as a group first though right? 18:03:15 sandro: yes but be clear that's the only one we want to do 18:03:44 tantek: yes we need to see how much time we have to be in CR... I think we talked about htis at the f2f and we had changes pending, looks like aaronpk made those changes 18:03:53 aaronpk: that's the only change I'm expecting based on feedback 18:04:14 ... that issue was from the i18n group. 18:04:42 tantek: we should put proposal forward, then sandro and I can see about process after 18:05:00 sandro: sure, one reason I'm slightly hesitant is it seems like that vocab issue is something to address too 18:05:08 aaronpk: the extensibility issue? 18:05:15 sandro: yes it's not exactly normative, but... 18:05:32 Not normative, but important 18:06:14 sandro: the spec says, what do you do if you don't know how to handle them? 18:06:18 aaronpk: just ignore them, says spec 18:07:02 sandro: it's pretyt important for the community... it's not normative for current implementations, but is normative for extensions. ah yes, here's why it's normative. If I make an extension foo, and then I see foo, is it my foo vs someone else's? we don't know unless we all agree we're participating in the same registry of extensions 18:07:13 ... so it is normative, to make sure all participants are in same registry. does that make sense? 18:07:26 tantek: right now there's no official mechanism right? 18:07:32 can we leave formalized extensions to future W3C WGs? Isn't that basically what the standard that has always been until recently? 18:07:33 aaronpk: essentially it's namespaces by micropub 18:07:47 ... there's no official mechanism 18:07:58 sandro: that's technically an answer but not good for the community 18:08:03 tantek: yeah it's technically ok 18:08:17 ... we can say if you want to extend it, say here's some guidance 18:08:31 ... I think as long as core spec is conservative, it's ok 18:08:44 cwebber2: I'm not sure... if it's conservative, it seems contrained? 18:08:50 ... to just the core spec? 18:09:16 tantek: as2 has a way with activities, because we knew from day 1 there are lots of different servers and etc 18:09:16 Community Group for extensions? 18:09:32 ... ??? between clients and servers ??? much more restrictive 18:09:44 PROPOSAL: Publish an updated CR of Micropub with the normative change in response to i18n issue raised during first CR, and editorial changes too. 18:09:50 sandro: most of extensibility in micropub is extending microformats not micropub 18:10:29 +1 18:10:30 +1 18:10:34 +0 since I'm not totally clear on what this namespaces mechanism resolved to, but I'm a-ok with new CR 18:10:50 +0 same as chris 18:11:18 cwebber2, rhiaro can you add comments to https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/33 so we make sure capture and handle your concerns? 18:11:33 +1 18:11:34 cwebber2: tantek, sure 18:11:53 Zakim, who is here? 18:11:53 Present: aaronpk, csarven, cwebber, rhiaro, bengo, sandro, tantek, !1 18:11:55 On IRC I see shepazu, jasnell_, KevinMarks, tantek, timbl, Zakim, RRSAgent, bengo, pdurbin, raucao, wilkie, bigbluehat, KjetilK, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, strugee, cwebber2, 18:11:55 ... ben_thatmustbeme, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, csarven, rhiaro, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot 18:12:03 present+ 18:12:22 Sandro, can you just confirm https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/62 18:12:45 coming back? or shall we resolve and adjourn? 18:13:19 rhiaro: I just raised an issue to see if this is non-normative or normative 18:13:20 rhiaro raises a good point 18:13:38 sandro: yeah I think I'd take that out of the note 18:13:46 I agree with sandro 18:13:49 rhiaro: I got the impression you could ??? it in the spec 18:13:57 sandro: I'm sure people can read it different ways but.. 18:14:26 tantek: afaict the change for 62 should be at CR 18:14:30 yeah that's a normative change in case people were skimming over the green blocks before 18:15:05 ... I agree with what rhiaro just said on irc 18:15:11 sandro: in the cs class 18:15:19 ... for respec, that's an editorial note 18:15:22 I think it's just class="note" 18:15:24 ... or is it some other note? 18:15:32 tantek: yes that's still informative 18:15:35 PROPOSAL: Publish an updated CR of Micropub with the normative change in response to i18n issue raised during first CR, and resolving issue 62, and editorial changes too. 18:15:54 aaronpk: and check that doesn't crop up anywhere else too I guess 18:15:58 +1 18:16:01 +1 18:16:01 +1 18:16:02 cwebber2: +0 same as before 18:16:03 +1 18:16:19 RESOLVED: Publish an updated CR of Micropub with the normative change in response to i18n issue raised during first CR, and resolving issue 62, and editorial changes too. 18:16:47 tantek: are there any things here that affect implementations? 18:17:28 do we need a WD first? 18:17:34 as a seperate vote? 18:17:35 scribenick: rhiaro 18:17:44 tantek: ben_thatmustbe, no we don't need a new WD 18:17:51 ok 18:17:56 ... aaronpk confirmed these normative changes do affect implementations, so we need to ask for a new CR period 18:18:01 ... sandro and I will do that 18:18:09 ... We have a test suite now, what is the coverage? 18:18:26 aaronk: I am missing tests for media endpoint and querying 18:18:38 ... and nothing explicitly testing access tokens 18:18:43 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zB4005g17VWbEie7PF6vkt7TZx6zQDWCzmpKXDYW9UM/edit?usp=sharing 18:18:46 ... test coverage here ^ 18:18:54 ... a list of features and tests 18:19:02 tantek: when do you think you'll have feature coverage? 18:19:06 aaronpk: definitely by next week 18:19:16 tantek: implementation reports for micropub? 18:19:28 aaronpk: some peolpe have started using the tool, but there's no submit report button yet 18:19:31 ... Will have by next week 18:19:36 tantek: we can look at this again next week 18:19:57 ... I think that's it for this week 18:20:00 ... Any other document status? 18:20:01 q? 18:20:13 ... Sandro and i need to figure out how to expidite a new CR 18:20:59 rhiaro: How is publishing a note different? 18:21:02 sandro: Like publishing a WD 18:21:09