13:22:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:22:06 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-lws-irc
13:22:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #lws
13:22:35 <TallTed> meeting: Linked Web Storage WG
13:22:35 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:22:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-lws-minutes.html TallTed
13:25:10 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-lws-minutes.html
13:25:10 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/04/06-lws-minutes.html
13:29:09 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260330T100000/
13:29:10 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:29:10 <agendabot> agenda+ Introductions & Announcements
13:29:10 <agendabot> agenda+ Issue triage
13:29:10 <agendabot> agenda+ PR #82 - Pagination
13:29:10 <agendabot> agenda+ PR #96 - Propose Web-CID Profile for Agent Identification
13:29:12 <agendabot> agenda+ PR #106 - Add editors draft for LWS Access Requests and Access Grants
13:29:15 <agendabot> agenda+ Status of Notifications
13:29:18 <agendabot> agenda+ Status of Type Indexes
13:38:25 <acoburn> acoburn has joined #lws
13:53:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-lws-minutes.html TallTed
13:56:38 <laurens> laurens has joined #lws
13:57:07 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
13:58:00 <laurens> agenda?
13:58:18 <laurens> chair: laurens
13:58:33 <uvdsl> uvdsl has joined #lws
13:58:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-lws-minutes.html TallTed
13:59:12 <eBremer> present+
13:59:19 <TallTed> present+
13:59:28 <laurens> present+
14:00:46 <termontwouter> termontwouter has joined #lws
14:01:16 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #lws
14:01:21 <pchampin> present+
14:01:24 <bendm> bendm has joined #lws
14:01:30 <bendm> present+
14:01:52 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
14:01:58 <gibsonf1> present+
14:02:43 <laurens> scribe: gibsonf1
14:03:00 <gibsonf1> scribe+
14:03:12 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:03:12 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions & Announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:04:32 <gibsonf1> laurens: One small announcement from my side: April 27/28 FTF mtg coming up in London  hosted by ODI - next week will be taking time for agenda - get items for agenda ready for next week.
14:05:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:05:34 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:05:36 <AZ> AZ has joined #lws
14:05:37 <acoburn> acoburn has joined #lws
14:05:38 <jeswr> present+
14:05:43 <AZ> present+
14:05:44 <uvdsl> present+
14:05:46 <gibsonf1> jeswr: WIll send out an email about the FTF today
14:05:46 <acoburn> present+
14:05:52 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:05:52 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Issue triage -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:06:31 <gibsonf1> laurens:  New issue #110?
14:06:32 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/110 -> Issue 110 Need for a deterministic mechanism to declare the Abstract State Infoset Type of a resource (by damooo)
14:07:54 <gibsonf1> acoburn: I think its out of scope.  Could be important for spec build on top of LWS, but not our role to add this in.
14:07:55 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #lws
14:07:56 <laurens> q?
14:09:10 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:09:10 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- PR #82 - Pagination -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:09:26 <laurens> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82
14:09:26 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82 -> Pull Request 82 Pagination for LWS Containers (by laurensdeb)
14:11:15 <bendm> q+ to ask about total items: must be exact?
14:11:19 <gibsonf1> laurens: a few minor changes since last week.  Pagination section has been moved.  Now a SHOULD in general, and some wording changes.
14:11:23 <gibsonf1> q+
14:11:34 <laurens> ack bendm
14:11:34 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to ask about total items: must be exact?
14:12:45 <gibsonf1> bendm: are totalItems an integer and MUST?
14:13:40 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #lws
14:13:51 <pchampin> q+
14:14:09 <acoburn> q+ to ask about totalItems
14:14:14 <gibsonf1> ...It might be hard for servers to track changing content quantities
14:14:20 <laurens> ack gibsonf
14:14:22 <pchampin> scribe+
14:15:07 <pchampin> gibsonf1: about pagination, is the server in charge of how many items to put in a page?
14:15:29 <pchampin> laurens: yes, the text says the server defines page boundary
14:15:34 <pchampin> gibsonf1: could we take that out?
14:16:00 <pchampin> laurens: we could, but note that no text specifies how the client would specify page boundary
14:16:12 <pchampin> gibsonf1: agreed, but let's not prevent that
14:16:20 <laurens> q?
14:16:25 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:16:27 <laurens> ack pchampin
14:17:47 <gibsonf1> pchampin: I think we can remove that server decides page counts - support removing that constraint.  I think total-items can be absent
14:17:49 <gibsonf1> q+
14:17:50 <bendm> q+
14:17:55 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:17:55 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask about totalItems
14:18:36 <laurens> ack gibsonf
14:18:51 <pchampin> scribe+
14:19:16 <pchampin> gibsonf1: it would be really difficult for an application to provide good UX without knowing the total number of items
14:19:32 <pchampin> ... yes, it can change, but at a given time, I don't see why the server could not provide it
14:19:34 <laurens> ack bendm
14:19:45 <gibsonf1> acoburn: I agree with pchampin just said.  Could be difficult to determine total items.  Maybe not have total items
14:19:48 <pchampin> bendm: I'm happy to change the MUST to a SHOULD
14:20:06 <acoburn> +1 for SHOULD on totalItems
14:20:15 <laurens> q?
14:20:17 <pchampin> scribe-
14:20:20 <eBremer> +1 for SHOULD on totalItems
14:20:29 <gibsonf1> laurens: fine by me to change total items to Should
14:20:56 <laurens> PROPOSAL: to accept the pull request #82 as proposed.
14:20:56 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82 -> Pull Request 82 Pagination for LWS Containers (by laurensdeb)
14:21:02 <gibsonf1> ...would like to vote on proposal
14:21:08 <gibsonf1> +1
14:21:08 <pchampin> +1
14:21:09 <eBremer> +1
14:21:12 <laurens> +1
14:21:16 <TallTed> +0
14:21:18 <acoburn> +1
14:21:21 <uvdsl> +0
14:21:32 <jeswr> +1
14:21:41 <AZ> +0 (need more careful reading)
14:21:45 <bendm> q+ about modifications
14:21:49 <bendm> +1
14:21:59 <bendm> q+ to ask about modifications
14:22:14 <gibsonf1> ...looks like consensus to merge
14:22:15 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
14:22:21 <acoburn> ack about
14:22:23 <ryey> present+
14:22:25 <acoburn> ack modifications
14:22:35 <laurens> RESOLVED: to accept the pull request #82 as proposed.
14:22:36 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82 -> Pull Request 82 Pagination for LWS Containers (by laurensdeb)
14:22:43 <laurens> ack bendm
14:22:43 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to ask about modifications
14:23:00 <gibsonf1> bendm: Just adding a new issue is fine for follow up?
14:23:16 <gibsonf1> laurens: issue or pull request is fine for modifications
14:23:21 <laurens> q?
14:23:29 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:23:29 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- PR #96 - Propose Web-CID Profile for Agent Identification -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:23:53 <laurens> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96
14:23:54 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96 -> Pull Request 96 Propose Web-CID Profile for Agent Identification (by uvdsl)
14:24:15 <gibsonf1> ...Quite a bit of back and forth on #96 - want to keep it to 15 minutes for the agenda.
14:24:15 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96 -> Pull Request 96 Propose Web-CID Profile for Agent Identification (by uvdsl)
14:24:50 <laurens> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/57
14:24:51 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/57 -> Issue 57 Agent Identification (by uvdsl) [ready-for-pr]
14:26:06 <gibsonf1> uvdsl: To keep everything modular, came up with web based profile that LWS might employ.  Have been extensive technical discussions - add to PR if needed.  SHould it be recommendation track or working group note, or is this in scope.
14:27:06 <uvdsl> q+
14:28:04 <gibsonf1> laurens: My concerns at this point:  most pressing are conflicts with auth suite, the subject plane (how to fix), extra effort needed by implementors to take into account (range 14 concerns), Structure of LWS protocol - I don't see a good fit how this spec ties into the other documents - not sure its best for implentors
14:28:05 <laurens> ack uvdsl
14:28:38 <uvdsl> https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/164
14:28:39 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/164 -> Issue 164 Base identifier including a fragment (by pchampin)
14:29:32 <pchampin> q+
14:31:14 <acoburn> q+ to describe current technical conflicts and outline possible paths forward
14:31:25 <laurens> ack pchampin
14:31:26 <gibsonf1> uvdsl: On tech aspects, proposal not set in stone.  pchampin has locked issues upstream, has been discussion with verifiable identity group - can update as needed.  We can drop the workaround if there is a more elegant solution for the agent vs subject.  Current proposal is best way right now I could solve the various issues.  This does not adhere
14:31:26 <gibsonf1> to one protocol construct with LWS, but LWS could still potentially use it.  Verifiable Credential group uses a modular spec that might work for us too.
14:32:54 <uvdsl> q+ to answer PAC
14:33:34 <gibsonf1> pchampin: I'm abivalent to pushing this as a separate track document, my main reason is that apart from reconciliation, a smoother alignment is needed and already possible.  My impression is just do what is in the other spec - not sure about that.  Maybe is should be guidance instead
14:33:37 <laurens> ack uvdsl
14:33:37 <Zakim> uvdsl, you wanted to answer PAC
14:34:57 <kaefer3000> kaefer3000 has joined #lws
14:35:33 <pchampin> my point was: if you want to use https: CIDs, do whatever the CID spec says *and* what the HTTP spec says
14:36:09 <gibsonf1> uvdsl: I do agree with a smoother reconciliation.  The CID spec does not require http scheme, as such, don't define conformance statements about how to serve the control document.  There is an unspecified implementation gap, so I propose the LWS will provide the implementation spec in addition to the CID requirements that don't include
14:36:09 <gibsonf1> implementation.  We need a normative document to specify servers/consumers for this conformance profile of CID
14:36:13 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:36:13 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to describe current technical conflicts and outline possible paths forward
14:36:48 <uvdsl> q+ to respond to acoburn
14:39:08 <gibsonf1> acoburn: I object to this beacause of specific technical conflicts between CID spec and LWS spec.  THis make it a bit of a non-starter.  CID specifies a particular id field as being subject being described (in oauth etc) and that the subject is not the agent but the document id.  We could take an alternative approach: lets us adhere to CID and stay
14:39:08 <gibsonf1> consistent to LWS/oauth subject, simply describe how an implementation would differentate between agent and document url.
14:39:36 <pchampin> +1 303 redirect is  the "currently available smoother reconciliation" that I was talking about earlier
14:39:46 <laurens> q?
14:40:03 <laurens> ack uvdsl
14:40:03 <Zakim> uvdsl, you wanted to respond to acoburn
14:40:07 <gibsonf1> ...I'm pretty strongly -1 on this proposal, but there are ways to achieve the CID goals in a different way
14:40:20 <uvdsl> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96#issuecomment-4111660113
14:40:20 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96 -> Pull Request 96 Propose Web-CID Profile for Agent Identification (by uvdsl)
14:40:47 <pchampin> q+ to agree with both uvdsl and acoburn
14:42:15 <uvdsl> https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/163
14:42:15 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/163 -> Issue 163 Clarification about canonical URL dereferencing (by pchampin)
14:43:30 <gibsonf1> uvdsl: my proposal does not diverge from CID - usage of terms in different context is not indicative of the entire proposal - it is acceptable to clearly define the semantic differences in different speciations with the terminology section.  I suggest pchampin's path to reconcile differences, redirect might cause a problem, but might be issues
14:43:30 <gibsonf1> between canonical url of document and redirect does not resolve the underlying problem of fragment identifier.  303 has faced quite a resistance in the past so careful to recommend that as a solution.  I would prefer pchampins approach
14:43:32 <gibsonf1> q+
14:43:35 <laurens> ack pchampin
14:43:35 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to agree with both uvdsl and acoburn
14:47:20 <gibsonf1> pchampin: I agree with both uvdsl and acoburn.  Yes a CID can have itself as a subject, but then the expectation in rest of auth suite is that the subject is the agent.  Proposal conflicts with general approach to oauth.  But I see that you want a smoother approach.  As for 303, its not to require 303, I would argue that its not the easiest way to
14:47:20 <gibsonf1> comply (given the discomfort), but its the only way to comply at the moment.  I think its viable to use this now.
14:47:24 <laurens> ack gibsonf
14:47:26 <pchampin> scribe+
14:47:49 <pchampin> gibsonf1: at Twinpod, we do 303 redirect, it is a little ackward but it works
14:47:56 <acoburn> q+ to say that http14 should be possible, not required
14:48:00 <pchampin> ... we don't use fragments in WebID
14:48:04 <pchampin> scribe-
14:48:09 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:48:09 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to say that http14 should be possible, not required
14:48:29 <gibsonf1> acoburn: It should be possible to satisfy range 14, but it should not be required
14:48:38 <uvdsl> Using other CID profiles is always possible :)
14:49:49 <pchampin> I would consider that they conflict with how other specifications are typically articulated with each other
14:50:02 <gibsonf1> laurens:  To summarize:  proposal has some conflicts both inside and outside this working group.  On the other hand, there are range 14 concerns, with 303 redirect a possible solution, and possible CID 1.1 which might support fragment identifiers.  Does that summarize it for you and do you see a path forward?
14:50:27 <gibsonf1> uvdsl:  I would propose to adopt WEB-CID as a work item
14:50:41 <gibsonf1> laurens: any text to propose a vote on that
14:50:44 <kaefer3000> present+
14:50:45 <uvdsl> I thus propose Web-CID, an HTTP-based conformance profile for agent identification on the Web, for adoption by the WG as FPWD. This delivers on the task I was already assigned by the chairs to contribute to clearing issue #57 .
14:50:46 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/57 -> Issue 57 Agent Identification (by uvdsl) [ready-for-pr]
14:51:28 <gibsonf1> laurens: any objections?
14:51:34 <laurens> PROPOSAL: To adopt Web-CID, an HTTP-based conformance profile for agent identification on the Web, as proposed in PR #96
14:51:35 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96 -> Pull Request 96 Propose Web-CID Profile for Agent Identification (by uvdsl)
14:51:38 <pchampin> +0
14:51:46 <uvdsl> +1
14:51:49 <laurens> -1
14:51:50 <acoburn> -1 (for the reasons outlined in the meeting)
14:51:53 <kaefer3000> +1
14:51:59 <bendm> +0
14:51:59 <jeswr3> jeswr3 has joined #lws
14:52:00 <TallTed> -0
14:52:01 <gibsonf1> +0
14:52:13 <ryey> +0 (have no enough knowledge to determine)
14:52:23 <eBremer> +0
14:52:35 <jeswr> +0
14:52:52 <gibsonf1> laurens:  Because of the -1's, we need to remove the conflicts with LWS first.  We are running low on time to finish our charter
14:53:10 <uvdsl> q+ to ask about the specific conflicts
14:53:22 <laurens> ack uvdsl
14:53:22 <Zakim> uvdsl, you wanted to ask about the specific conflicts
14:53:25 <gibsonf1> ...There is relevance to this proposal and the discussion, would like to remove conflicts prior to merge.
14:53:48 <gibsonf1> uvdsl: Could you summarize the conflicts so I can address them?
14:54:22 <gibsonf1> laurens:  Most important is validation of authentication credentials.
14:55:01 <gibsonf1> uvdsl: Would have been good to get this feedback earlier
14:55:30 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:55:30 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- PR #106 - Add editors draft for LWS Access Requests and Access Grants -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:55:41 <gibsonf1> laurens:  Recommend all go through this PR so we can make progress.
14:55:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:56:54 <gibsonf1> acoburn:  Very briefly:  PR #106 some comments, no changes yet but will soon, but looking at making target attributes more flexible.  Would like more feedback and ideally vote on merge next Monday
14:56:54 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/106 -> Pull Request 106 Add editors draft for LWS Access Requests and Access Grants (by acoburn)
14:57:50 <gibsonf1> laurens:  Would be good to have PR for type index for next week
14:57:53 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:57:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:58:01 <gibsonf1> ebremer: will do that
14:59:51 <pchampin> s/to one protocol/... to one protocol
15:00:14 <acoburn> acoburn has left #lws
15:00:23 <pchampin> s/consistent to/... consistent to
15:00:35 <pchampin> s/between canonical/... between canonical
15:05:03 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:05:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:07:35 <pchampin> s/implementation.  We/... implementation.  We
15:07:48 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:07:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:09:03 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bye
15:09:03 <RRSAgent> I see no action items