<roba> * hi
<roba> * i hope i have the right webex link https://mit.webex.com/webappng/sites/mit/meeting/info/106621553492372659?MTID=mb23580ce541e9871c262ba3fbaabdae0
<roba> i have to hunt back through emails every time as i dont see it on the agenda page
<roba> * no sound yet for me yet
we can hear
<roba> * will keep fighting it..
<roba> * am going to reboot :-(
<roba_> * back with sound!
proposed: approve last meeting's minutes
Resolved: approve last meeting's minutes
<trackbot> action-166 -- Lars G. Svensson to Invite herbert & ruben to generate an ietf fpwd before tpac -- due 2018-08-08 -- OPEN
all open actions for CNEG: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/products/3
LarsG: has spoken to Herbert & Ruben. Will aim for a FPWD by mid-Nov
<LarsG> close action-166
<trackbot> Closed action-166.
<trackbot> action-193 -- Rob Atkinson to Move jmeter test suite to within w3c systems -- due 2018-09-05 -- OPEN
roba_: I will move the JMetere test suie repo file to within DXWG GitHub repo "utils" folder
roba_: Nick & I will update the JMeter test suite as CNEG work progresses
ncar: we need to write out the tests, in English, in the CNEG doc - the JMeter tests wouldn't be the authoratitive ones
<trackbot> action-213 -- Lars G. Svensson to Draft reply to kamhay, circulate with the group and then answer on the comments list -- due 2018-09-19 -- OPEN
<LarsG> close action-213
<trackbot> Closed action-213.
roba_: discusses action-224
roba_: there is little time for IETF draft and this WG's life
ncar: summarising our thoughts - as long as IETF draft doesn't completely change, we (DXWG) can use it to refer to and make tests in accordance with
LarsG: overall meduim risk since we have little to show from recent work
roba_: we can get the FPWD of the conneg doc out with the IETF dob being the HTTP implementation (and there will be others too, like the QSA approach)(
proposed: that this group issues the FPWD of the conneg doc with abstract requirement for HTTP and treats the IETF draft as the implementation
Resolved: that this group issues the FPWD of the conneg doc with abstract requirement for HTTP and treats the IETF draft as the implementation
LarsG: do we need plenary approval for a FPWD? Karen says so with last date being 2018-10-16 (before TPAC)
LarsG: overall WG needs doc a week before that to read
roba_: we are not far from a FPWG given DCAT's status at FPWD
ncar: main work for FPWD is coverage of issues in doc - that they represent where all work will occur - rather than work on specific issues
roba_: section "5. Recommendations for First Public Working Draft" in the doc should be a statement about the completeness of the issues
ncar: I will add a sentense in there addressing Rob's statement and the alert the user as to the FPWD's purpose
Action: ncar to add a paragraph into doc for "5. Recommendations for First Public Working Draft" as per comments above
<trackbot> Created ACTION-225 - Add a paragraph into doc for "5. recommendations for first public working draft" as per comments above [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-10-03].
Action: ncar to move "5. Recommendations for First Public Working Draft" into a subsection of the "Status of this Document"
<trackbot> Created ACTION-226 - Move "5. recommendations for first public working draft" into a subsection of the "status of this document" [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-10-03].
ncar: how should we proceed with edits on the doc
roba_: PRs not needed for Issue addition or non-content changes
LarsG: Karen will review the language of the doc
LarsG: this point is discussion about being careful about using "recommendation" at this stage of work
ncar: ncar has made some changes to ensure no "recommendation" wording is used
relevant document section: https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/#requirements
roba_: methodology for negotiation (including QSA) should be in this doc, not Guidance, unlike suggested in Issue 263
Issue relevant is https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/263
roba_: create an issue to discuss abstract v. concrete ways of describing conneg (HTTP + others) in conneg doc
ncar: we need a GitHub issue for deciding structure of content in doc after Sec 4
Succeeded 4 times: s/roba/roba_/g