18:55:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
18:55:20 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/30-vcwg-irc
18:55:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #vcwg
18:55:43 <brentz> zakim, start the meeting
18:55:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
18:55:45 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brentz
18:56:01 <brentz> meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group
18:56:13 <brentz> chair: Brent Zundel
18:56:19 <brentz> present+
19:00:42 <acoburn> acoburn has joined #vcwg
19:01:06 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
19:01:53 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
19:02:08 <mprorock> present+
19:02:13 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
19:02:17 <DavidC> present+
19:02:33 <acoburn> present+
19:02:55 <dlongley> present+
19:03:30 <cel> present+
19:03:33 <manu> q+ to note VC extension registry movement
19:03:40 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
19:03:51 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
19:03:54 <kristina> present+
19:04:20 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #vcwg
19:04:23 <markus_sabadello> present+
19:04:30 <markus_sabadello> scribe+
19:04:41 <selfissued> present+
19:04:49 <markus_sabadello> brentz: We use IRC for meeting minutes and handling queue.
19:04:53 <s_butters_> present+
19:05:00 <Orie> present+
19:05:02 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Please type present+ to record your present
19:05:14 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Let's review the agenda, apologies for sending it late.
19:05:31 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Intros, charter PRs, and make a resolution.
19:05:53 <markus_sabadello> manu: Need 2 minutes please to announce something.
19:06:00 <markus_sabadello> brentz:  Let's do that after introductions.
19:07:05 <markus_sabadello> s_butters_: I'm principal software engineer at Salesforce. One of the platforms I am building is for VC management for enterprises and non-profits. We're getting into usefulness of DIDs beyond VCs. Happy to be here and contribute, I think an important part of being a creater is being part of the ecosystem.
19:07:22 <markus_sabadello> s_butters_: We acquired Credential Master and partner with others.
19:07:55 <markus_sabadello> s_butters_: Credential Master application was a proof-of-concept that proved viability of VCs for Salesforce. Will be de-composed into broader set of platform functionalities.
19:08:21 <brentz> ack manu
19:08:21 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note VC extension registry movement
19:08:42 <markus_sabadello> manu: In VC 1.0 WG we had an extension registry. We handed that over to CCG to manage, and not much happened for a very long time.
19:09:19 <manu> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-extension-registry/pull/11
19:09:23 <markus_sabadello> manu: More recently, IMS Global (for education sector) has been looking for crypto suites that they will support. Ed25519Signature2020 came up. They wanted to reference it in their specs but couldn't point anywhere. They suggested to point to extensions registry.
19:09:46 <markus_sabadello> manu: PR is open on the extension registry now.
19:09:49 <markus_sabadello> manu: Code owner entries are really old.
19:10:09 <markus_sabadello> manu: We haven't re-visited the process of adding extensions. Not sure how much this group wants to be involved with this.
19:10:11 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #vcwg
19:10:13 <justin_r> present+
19:10:42 <dmitriz_> present+
19:10:44 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: Manu give me a bit more on the process you use for registering algorithms.
19:10:49 <manu> Registration process -- https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-extension-registry/#the-registration-process
19:10:50 <markus_sabadello> manu: Registry defines the registration process.
19:11:09 <MacTed> present+
19:11:22 <markus_sabadello> manu: VCWG signed off on this in its first iteration. It's pretty straightforward. You have to implement the extension, create a specification, then request it to be added via Github PR.
19:11:29 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: What algortihm are you registering?
19:11:32 <TallTed> present+
19:11:35 <dlongley> it's not an algorithm, it's a cryptosuite
19:11:54 <markus_sabadello> manu: It's specifically the Ed25519Signature2020 (Edwards curve). The spec and implementation are linked in the PR.
19:12:01 <brentz> topic: VCWG Charter - PRs
19:12:01 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: Thank you that's a good clarification.
19:12:18 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pulls
19:12:24 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Looking at 2 PRs now.
19:12:31 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/105
19:12:57 <markus_sabadello> brentz: This was raised by cel , can you talk us through it. (Charles Lehner)
19:13:14 <markus_sabadello> cel: This adds Koblitz ECDSA Recovery Cryptosuite
19:13:22 <markus_sabadello> cel: It's similar to other mentioned suites for other algorithms.
19:13:28 <manu> q+ to note that we need to understand process how DIF hands something over to W3C.
19:13:43 <brentz> ack manu
19:13:43 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we need to understand process how DIF hands something over to W3C.
19:13:45 <markus_sabadello> cel: It's JWS based with detached mode. Incorporates new unregistered JWA. This is at DIF.
19:13:53 <mprorock> https://identity.foundation/EcdsaSecp256k1RecoverySignature2020/docs/
19:13:56 <markus_sabadello> manu: +1 to this. Supportive of this.
19:14:17 <markus_sabadello> manu: At some point we need to understand by which DIF releases these specs, so that this WG can pick it up and use it.
19:14:36 <markus_sabadello> manu: I hope the group that creates it operates in W3C mode, not sure if we have ever handed over a spec from DIF.
19:14:49 <cel> https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/105
19:15:12 <manu> I don't anticipate it being a problem either, we just need to have an answer for W3C legal.
19:15:16 <markus_sabadello> brentz: There is an Apache license on the repo. I agree we need to interact with DIF to more formally handle it. I don't anticipate a problem considering the license.
19:15:36 <markus_sabadello> brentz: This PR had positive feedback. Anyone opposed to merging it?
19:16:07 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Hearing no opposition, will merge it.
19:16:17 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/107
19:16:30 <markus_sabadello> brentz: This was raised by kristina
19:16:40 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Can you walk us through this?
19:17:17 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Addresses issue 88. For the cryptosuites we are only referencing CCG documents which define algorithms.
19:17:22 <markus_sabadello> kristina: But not for JWT VCs.
19:17:59 <markus_sabadello> kristina: I got the question a few times, what does that mean. The purpose was to clarify the cryptosuites that would be used for JWT VCs.
19:18:12 <markus_sabadello> kristina: I thought JOSE registry was the most concise way.
19:18:54 <selfissued> q+
19:19:12 <brentz> ack selfissued
19:19:13 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Is there a better way to portray concerns about the context. The PR is an attempt to do so.
19:19:37 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: I find manu 's comments a bit confusing. He seems to be assuming input documents we would take over and modify. That's not that list.
19:19:47 <manu> q+ to note concerns
19:20:00 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: Input documents will inform the work. I applaud kristina since this is a really concise to reference input documents.
19:20:02 <brentz> ack manu
19:20:02 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note concerns
19:20:33 <markus_sabadello> manu: My understanding of input documents is quite different from that. An input document is a document that is specifically an input for the WG. The WG is taking it over and may or may not change it.
19:20:44 <markus_sabadello> manu: Inputs are taken over to create deliverables.
19:21:02 <TallTed> q+
19:21:07 <justin_r> q+
19:21:10 <selfissued> q+
19:21:15 <markus_sabadello> manu: The reason why it's important to specify them is to establish IP commitments. This should be reviewed by legal council, as the technologies that the group will touch directly. It establishes an IPR scope.
19:21:20 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
19:21:30 <markus_sabadello> manu: I think this understanding of input documents has been pretty consistent across W3C WGs.
19:21:47 <markus_sabadello> manu: This PR feels like a no-op, nothing changes if we accept or not accept it. In the best case.
19:22:02 <markus_sabadello> manu: In the worst case, we list IANA registry as input document, which it is not. We reference it, not use it as input document.
19:22:23 <kristina> q+
19:22:29 <markus_sabadello> manu: CCG input documents reference IETF RCFs. Therefore we don't have to mention them in the charter.
19:23:04 <markus_sabadello> manu: What are we attempting to accomplish with this text? What's the concrete goal of this PR, I don't understand it right now.
19:23:05 <brentz> ack TallTed
19:23:30 <kristina> yes, I could not find either...
19:23:31 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: My intuitive understanding of input docs is closed to selfissued than manu . I'm searching from some definition and can't find one.
19:23:43 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: If that definition exist, we should be able to link to it and also gain understanding from it.
19:24:10 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: Failing that definition, then I'm siding with selfissued with what that list should do. It's basis for continuing work, not work that we're going to subsume and replace.
19:24:13 <brentz> ack justin_r
19:24:47 <Orie> +1 justin, mike and ted
19:24:53 <markus_sabadello> justin_r: It seems very strange to cite IPR protections as motivating factor for listing input documents, since input documents traditionally are documents the group will look at to create new things. Any text that is taken in has to be vetted regardless of its original source.
19:25:37 <markus_sabadello> justin_r: My concern with listing input documents is that this would be used as a limiting function to the WG; somebody would use this list to say that we can't talk about something because it's not in the list of input documents. That worries me about having things explicitly listed.
19:25:44 <mprorock> +1
19:25:49 <TallTed> q+ to say that concern about limiting factor is easily allayed by "input documents INCLUDE" or "these among others" or similar
19:26:01 <markus_sabadello> justin_r: Charters are meant to guide the WG. It's up to chairs and WG and SDO to interpret the charter to help the WG do its job. Not a strict recipe for the WG to follow.
19:26:04 <brentz> ack selfissued
19:26:44 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: manu unless you can find W3C document which explains the term "input documents" in the manner that you're interpreting it, I suggested it would be more reasonable to use plain English meaning, which TallTed  and justin_r  and others have just supported.
19:26:45 <justin_r> +1 to plain english (as opposed to a defined separate term)
19:26:48 <manu> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/
19:27:05 <brentz> q+ to talk a little process
19:27:20 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: This is a concise way to listen important inputs, otherwise we would have a much longer list. I will reserver judgement based on whether manu can find W3C document that says what we mean by "input document".
19:27:20 <brentz> ack kristina
19:28:00 <justin_r> @manu "input document" does not occur in that page, and the only uses of "input" are simple plain english
19:28:09 <markus_sabadello> kristina: It's to clarify the documents that we would look into when we work on JWT VCs.
19:28:53 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Regarding definition of "input document", I did try to look for a definition, unfortunately I couldn't find it. Can you provide a definition, then I'm happy to change PR accordingly.
19:28:54 <manu> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20200915/
19:29:11 <manu> I'm just providing links -- "input document" has no official definition at W3C... I can just speak to how it's been used in Patent Advisory Groups in the past.
19:29:32 <justin_r> if it has no official meaning, then why are you using it as a term?
19:29:35 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: Limiting factor concern can be handled by a phrase that says the list is not exhaustive.. Or similar phrasing. Then there's no limiting factor.
19:29:36 <selfissued> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/ doesn't speak about Input Documents, as far as I can tell
19:29:54 <justin_r> +1 to TallTed
19:29:56 <brentz> ack TallTed
19:29:56 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to say that concern about limiting factor is easily allayed by "input documents INCLUDE" or "these among others" or similar
19:30:02 <brentz> ack brentz
19:30:02 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to talk a little process
19:30:30 <selfissued> I'm fine with "input documents include"
19:30:40 <kristina> Justin, did you mean to imply none of the input documents should be listed?
19:30:42 <markus_sabadello> brentz: At first my understanding was the same as manu 's, but reading through the process it is quite broad of what it expects. We must describe the nature of deliverables. If an deliverable is based on previous document, then we have to say what those are.
19:31:01 <justin_r> @kristina: no I'm saying that listing input documents just means "this is a bunch of stuff we're going to look at"
19:31:16 <kristina> it already says "The following are a non-exhaustive selection of input documents"
19:31:18 <justin_r> @kristina: you could list a blog post as an "input document"
19:31:25 <brentz> q?
19:31:25 <manu> q+
19:31:26 <selfissued> q+
19:31:26 <markus_sabadello> brentz: If there still is a concern about intentions on our part to take over those things, we should add additional language. Those concerns should be no reason to not merge the PR.
19:31:33 <brentz> ack manu
19:31:54 <justin_r> q+ to define input document and output document
19:32:05 <markus_sabadello> manu: There is no official definition, we talked about this in a previous meeting. I thought it was clear, but it seems there isn't. Should we define what we mean by input document.
19:32:13 <TallTed> q+
19:32:21 <brentz> ack selfissued
19:32:21 <markus_sabadello> manu: I'm -1 on this, but I will not stand in the way..
19:32:43 <manu> q+ to ask what limits our scope, then?
19:32:44 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: There was a suggestion in chat to say "input documents include...". I'm fine with this clarification.
19:32:57 <brentz> The charter already has the sentence: "The following are a non-exhaustive selection of expected input documents:"
19:33:10 <mprorock> q+
19:33:15 <manu> q-
19:33:15 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: Defining terms such as "input documents" is going too meta for me. The English meaning is clear enough.
19:33:18 <brentz> ack justin_r
19:33:18 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to define input document and output document
19:33:23 <TallTed> Existing "non-exhaustive selection" language seems sufficient to me.
19:33:33 <kristina> to me too
19:33:40 <markus_sabadello> justin_r: I wanted to provide a quick definition what input and output documents mean.
19:33:43 <mprorock> plenty of other examples out there in this regard: https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/commit/c4db6475a61cc56075a7183a8fb04bf52faaaa3c
19:34:00 <markus_sabadello> justin_r: Input documents is something you read and you might take text from, when you create output documents.
19:34:07 <selfissued> +1 to Justin's characterization of Input Documents and Output Documents
19:34:22 <markus_sabadello> justin_r: This group should treat all artifacts as something that is created by this group. As an official artifact.
19:34:36 <manu> hrm, that's not true -- why do CGs at W3C have FCGR and IPR commitments, then?
19:35:01 <markus_sabadello> justin_r: You have to treat the documents that are created here as brand new documents that are taking some if its contents from other sources.
19:35:05 <manu> q+
19:35:08 <dmitriz_>  would this topic of discussion be a question for Ivan?
19:35:17 <mprorock> from the Pub WG "Input Documents: The following documents will be considered by the Working Group as inputs to the specifications to be developed."
19:35:32 <markus_sabadello> q+
19:35:35 <manu> q+ to note that CGs have IPR commitments
19:35:48 <markus_sabadello> justin_r: There must be misunderstanding if there back channel comments.
19:35:49 <brentz> ack TallTed
19:36:03 <justin_r> yes, CGs have IPR commitments for their output documents
19:36:11 <justin_r> it's exactly the same
19:36:23 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: In my world the reason to list input documents is to tell people that we have taking into account various input documents. We are aware of standards from IETF that says whatever it says.
19:36:25 <justin_r> this is not in contradiction to what I've said
19:36:35 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: It could contradict what we output, but we output it for a reason.
19:36:51 <justin_r> +1 to TallTed
19:37:04 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: There's nothing there that gives IPR.
19:37:05 <brentz> ack mprorock
19:37:49 <brentz> q+ to run proposal
19:37:50 <markus_sabadello> mprorock: I did some querying, and in every case it's defined very broadly.
19:38:03 <brentz> ack manu
19:38:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that CGs have IPR commitments
19:38:05 <markus_sabadello> mprorock: I really like the spirit of this PR.
19:38:27 <markus_sabadello> manu: To address justin_r 's point, I don't know how many of you work with legal team when joining WGs.
19:39:07 <markus_sabadello> manu: It is very important to those legal councils that.. For example when CCG creates a specification that it goes through final specification agreement that requires IPR agreement, before it can be moved into an official group.
19:39:22 <markus_sabadello> manu: This is a requirement for being used as an input document for a WG.
19:39:35 <selfissued> q+
19:39:45 <markus_sabadello> manu: Our legal council has made it clear that an input document needs prior IPR agreement.
19:39:50 <justin_r> this is only true because you are pulling in text
19:40:00 <brentz> ack markus_sabadello
19:40:01 <justin_r> it's not because it's an "input document", it's because it's going into the outputs
19:40:03 <TallTed> q+ to say those legal counsel can only have been speaking through their hats.
19:40:10 <manu> Your statement was "IPR starts at the WG" -- that's not true... it starts /before/.
19:40:17 <TallTed> s/legal council/legal counsel/
19:40:18 <manu> and it's vitally important that it does.
19:40:23 <cel> scribe+
19:40:29 <justin_r> @manu I believe that is a mischaracterization
19:40:48 <manu> I'd like to hear that from your legal counsel, justin_r :)
19:40:53 <cel> markus_sabadello: I remember when the DID WG started, there was a previous specification in CCG, the DID Core specification, that was input document to the DID WG. at that time I remember the discussion about asking whether the GitHub history of it should be preserved when moving it into the WG.
19:40:59 <justin_r> @manu you'll hear from my lawyers ;)
19:41:16 <brentz> q+ to talk about the difference between input documents and a WG selecting a document as a FPWD
19:41:21 <cel> ... I think there was a lot of support for keeping the history. I think this means that the input document does not just inform the working group but is actually the basis of something the WG will take on to work on to create a deliverable
19:41:30 <kristina> exactly, I think it can be both
19:41:35 <cel> ... So in my mind I think input documents can be both, something to inform the group, but also could be a basis for an output document.
19:41:35 <markus_sabadello> scribe+
19:41:35 <brentz> ack brentz
19:41:35 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to run proposal and to talk about the difference between input documents and a WG selecting a document as a FPWD
19:42:07 <markus_sabadello> brentz: There is a difference in my understanding between input document listed in the charter, and a document the WG selects as FPWD of a deliverable they are working on.
19:42:09 <justin_r> +1 those are very different
19:42:21 <mprorock> the did-wg charter uses "input" in relation to documents in both ways - one informative, one to convert into an actual rec
19:42:22 <markus_sabadello> brentz: I think any documents that could become FPWD should be listed as input documents. But we shouldn't conflate the two.
19:42:46 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Having something as input document doesn't mean that the group takes it as FPWD. Theoretically we could use something else as FPWD as long as IPR is clean.
19:42:52 <brentz> PROPOSAL: Merge PR 107
19:42:52 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Going to run a simple proposal.
19:42:59 <selfissued> +1
19:43:02 <TallTed> +1
19:43:04 <Orie> +1
19:43:04 <justin_r> +1 (this is a silly discussion)
19:43:05 <kristina> +1
19:43:06 <mprorock> +1
19:43:08 <s_butters_> +1
19:43:09 <brentz> +1
19:43:11 <manu> -1 it doesn't change what the WG does (but I will not object to the charter over it)
19:43:17 <DavidC> 0
19:43:18 <markus_sabadello> 0
19:43:20 <cel> +0
19:43:24 <dlongley> 0
19:43:36 <justin_r> @manu it's not meant to change what the WG does -- which is what we're saying
19:43:55 <manu> -0.9 it doesn't change what the WG does (but I will not object to the charter over it)
19:44:15 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: Some are citing experiences from last groups, others are citing legal councils.
19:45:34 <brentz> RESOLVED: (over the objection of Manu) Merge PR 107
19:45:35 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: Member submissions need to have IPR. We could list Encyclopedia Britannica as input document. That would be silly. Listing a dozen input documents that do have influence, that's entirely reasonable. Nobody outside the group needs to be involved.
19:45:36 <TallTed> s/councils/counsels/
19:46:12 <justin_r> q
19:46:22 <markus_sabadello> brentz: With that I'm going to close issue 88.
19:46:42 <brentz> ack selfissued
19:46:46 <TallTed> q-
19:47:14 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: Microsoft has a very rigorious IPR process when chartering/joining WGs. None of what manu said applies at Microsoft. Input documents are not part of the discussion.
19:47:35 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Thank you everyone for the conversation.
19:48:00 <markus_sabadello> brentz: I believe we constructed something good that is ready to take the next step.
19:48:00 <brentz> topic: Charter Proposal
19:48:40 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Please q+ to comment on proposal. It would be good to achieve unanimous support.
19:48:55 <brentz> PROPOSAL: We will submit the VCWG Charter as it currently stands to the W3M and the AC for Review
19:48:57 <brentz> +1
19:48:57 <dlongley> +1
19:48:58 <DavidC> +1
19:48:59 <manu> +1
19:49:00 <selfissued> +1
19:49:00 <kristina> +1
19:49:01 <TallTed> +1
19:49:04 <Orie> +1
19:49:05 <markus_sabadello> +1
19:49:06 <mprorock> +1
19:49:11 <dmitriz_> +1
19:49:16 <cel> +1
19:49:18 <acoburn> +1
19:49:27 <s_butters_> +1
19:49:31 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Please indiciate your vote if you're on the call.
19:49:48 <brentz> RESOLVED: We will submit the VCWG Charter as it currently stands to the W3M and the AC for Review
19:50:07 <markus_sabadello> brentz: I will talk to ivan to do the next steps.
19:50:28 <markus_sabadello> brentz: If we need to address concerns about the charter, I propose to leave the meeting on the calendar in case we need it.
19:50:39 <cel> 🎉
19:50:40 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Good work! I look forward to serving with you in the next WG.
19:50:48 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Any final words?
19:51:06 <markus_sabadello> manu: brentz you're awesome, thank you for leading us through this!
19:51:09 <dlongley> +1 to brent's awesomeness
19:51:11 <DavidC> +1
19:51:14 <TallTed> +1MM :-)
19:51:20 <selfissued> Seconding the appreciation of Brent
19:51:28 <cel> +💯
19:51:41 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Thank you all
19:51:49 <brentz> zakim, who is here?
19:51:49 <Zakim> Present: brentz, mprorock, DavidC, acoburn, dlongley, cel, kristina, markus_sabadello, selfissued, s_butters_, Orie, justin_r, dmitriz_, MacTed, TallTed, 💯
19:51:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see kristina, justin_r, markus_sabadello, selfissued, mprorock, Orie, acoburn, Zakim, RRSAgent, brentz, s_butters_, tzviya, dmitriz_, TallTed, juancaballero, cel[m], cel,
19:51:53 <Zakim> ... hadleybeeman, shigeya, wayne_, dlehn_, dlongley, gannan, adam, mlemweb, manu, dmitriz, collier, dlehn, stonematt, bigbluehat, rhiaro
19:52:08 <brentz> zkim, end the meeting
19:52:14 <brentz> zakim, end the meeting
19:52:14 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brentz, mprorock, DavidC, acoburn, dlongley, cel, kristina, markus_sabadello, selfissued, s_butters_, Orie, justin_r, dmitriz_, MacTed,
19:52:17 <Zakim> ... TallTed, 💯
19:52:17 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:52:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/30-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
19:52:20 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brentz; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
19:52:23 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
19:52:31 <brentz> rrsagent, bye
19:52:31 <RRSAgent> I see no action items