13:50:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:50:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/08/03-lws-irc
13:50:41 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:50:43 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), laurens
13:50:55 <laurens> meeting: LWS WG Meeting - August 3rd, 2026
13:51:08 <laurens> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260803T100000/
13:51:08 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:51:08 <agendabot> agenda+ Introduction and announcements
13:51:08 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Threat Model document -> PR#202 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/202
13:51:08 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Content Negotiation requirements -> PR#190 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/190
13:51:09 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Add Access Request terms to Vocabulary -> PR#199 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/199
13:51:12 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Adjust JSON-LD Context section -> PR#187 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/187
13:51:15 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Privacy Considerations in Authentication Suites -> PR#206 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/206
13:51:18 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Remove ACL references -> PR#203 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/203
13:51:21 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: Clarify Slug header references in protocol -> Issue#94 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/94
13:51:24 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: Clarify ETag header references in protocol -> Issue#62 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/62
13:51:27 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: Vocabulary terms from Activity Streams -> Issue#204 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/204
13:51:36 <laurens> chair: laurens
13:58:43 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
14:00:07 <acoburn> acoburn has joined #lws
14:00:55 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
14:01:02 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #lws
14:01:10 <gibsonf1> present+
14:01:13 <TallTed> present+
14:01:20 <acoburn> present+
14:01:28 <elf-pavlik> present+
14:01:31 <eBremer> present+
14:02:09 <rbreitman> rbreitman has joined #lws
14:02:18 <pchampin> present+
14:02:28 <rbreitman> present+
14:03:47 <termontwouter> termontwouter has joined #lws
14:04:09 <eBremer> scribe+
14:04:38 <termontwouter> present+
14:04:42 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:04:42 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduction and announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:04:46 <eBremer> laurens: intros and announcements
14:05:03 <eBremer> ... rerchartering of the WG
14:05:36 <eBremer> ... working on extension to bridge end of current charter which ends 9/8.  PA will be doing initial effort
14:05:39 <termontwouter> anyone else has a lot of static on laurens' audio ?
14:06:05 <eBremer> acoburn: current thinking will be copy/paste of charter with diff dates of deliverables
14:06:18 <eBremer> ... those are things we want to make sure we are aligned as a group
14:06:42 <eBremer> ... during admin extension will go through AC vote / horizontal review
14:06:49 <eBremer> ... we can then begin the new charter
14:06:59 <eBremer> laurens: any questions thoughts?
14:07:11 <termontwouter> better!
14:07:26 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:07:26 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Vote: Threat Model document -> PR#202 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/202 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:07:27 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
14:07:31 <ryey> present+
14:08:02 <eBremer> laurens: are we ready to proceed to vote
14:08:28 <eBremer> ryey: vote on whether threat model should be part of specification
14:08:33 <acoburn> q+ to note typo in agenda proposal
14:08:52 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:08:52 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to note typo in agenda proposal
14:09:07 <eBremer> acoburn: if you copy paste from agenda, please note typo
14:09:21 <eBremer> laurens: any further concerns before vote?
14:09:27 <laurens> PROPOSAL: Adopt Threat Model document from https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/202
14:09:28 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/202 -> PR 202 WIP: Add LWS threat model document (by renyuneyun) [security-privacy]
14:09:32 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:09:32 <gibsonf1> +1
14:09:34 <laurens> +1
14:09:35 <acoburn> +1
14:09:35 <eBremer> +1
14:09:35 <termontwouter> +1
14:09:38 <pchampin> +1
14:09:38 <TallTed> +1
14:09:39 <ryey> +1
14:09:57 <laurens> RESOLVED: Adopt Threat Model document from https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/202
14:10:07 <elf-pavlik> q+ to comment on next steps
14:10:13 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:10:13 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to comment on next steps
14:10:26 <eBremer> elf-pavlik: is boiler plat to get us going
14:10:38 <eBremer> ... go through privacy considerations documents
14:10:50 <eBremer> ... iterative process putting time in each week
14:10:59 <eBremer> ... get some feedback on the way we are doing it
14:11:10 <eBremer> ... Ill be trying to help to get it moving
14:11:21 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:11:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/03-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:11:32 <eBremer> laurens: yes, starting point.
14:11:50 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:11:50 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Vote: Content Negotiation requirements -> PR#190 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/190 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:12:13 <acoburn> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/07/27-lws-minutes.html
14:12:20 <laurens> scribe+
14:12:28 <laurens> eBremer: Mostly editorial changes.
14:12:28 <acoburn> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/08/10-lws-minutes.html
14:13:02 <laurens> PROPOSAL: Change content negotiation requirements and description as proposed in https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/190
14:13:03 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/190 -> PR 190 Consolidate ConNeg requirements into the LWS Media Type Section (by ebremer)
14:13:04 <gibsonf1> +1
14:13:07 <eBremer> +1
14:13:07 <termontwouter> +1
14:13:08 <laurens> +1
14:13:09 <acoburn> +1
14:13:09 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:13:15 <pchampin> +1
14:13:21 <rbreitman> 0
14:13:21 <ryey> +1
14:13:32 <TallTed> +0
14:13:47 <laurens> RESOLVED: Change content negotiation requirements and description as proposed in https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/190
14:13:57 <elf-pavlik> q+ to mention lack of fragmens in application/json
14:14:10 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:14:10 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention lack of fragmens in application/json
14:14:13 <laurens> scribe-
14:14:46 <eBremer> elf-pavlik: talked about equivalence between media types and application json doesnt specify fragments
14:15:27 <eBremer> elf-pavlik: leave no issue unless something comes up
14:15:57 <eBremer> laurens: leave it until it pops up elsewhere if that is okay with you
14:16:01 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:16:01 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Vote: Add Access Request terms to Vocabulary -> PR#199 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/199 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:16:05 <eBremer> elf-pavlik: sounds good
14:16:56 <eBremer> acorburn: additive PR is just touching the vocabulary resource just adding terms
14:17:11 <eBremer> s/acorburn/acoburn
14:17:30 <termontwouter> q+
14:17:34 <laurens> ack termontwouter
14:17:38 <eBremer> acoburn: but this pr just additive
14:18:02 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask if rules from https://www.w3.org/2016/08/namespaces/ apply
14:18:18 <eBremer> termontwouter: there is a domain added to most of the terms and its always LWS access policy.  that seems weird
14:18:38 <eBremer> ... there's a one off statement for example with the left operand
14:18:56 <eBremer> ... while in the spec edits the server must support all of these
14:19:29 <eBremer> acoburn: in terms of left operand, that a little bbit of a requirement for this YAML to vocab tooling that we use to produce this
14:20:07 <pchampin> q+
14:20:18 <eBremer> ... that contains other jsonld contexts its possible to have other values there.  PA you are the expert on how this works
14:20:40 <laurens> ack pchampin
14:20:46 <eBremer> ... value of a json-ld property is treated as a string rather than a URI
14:21:23 <eBremer> pchampin: what you describe is correct aaron.  wouter's comment is more about the owl description
14:21:34 <termontwouter> That is indeed what I meant
14:21:37 <eBremer> ... its more of a tooling problem we need to solve
14:21:56 <eBremer> ... but we want the owl description to be more constraining that it is
14:22:01 <acoburn> q+ to ask about domain defns
14:22:03 <laurens> ACTION: pchampin to discuss with Yvan on the use of oneOf in yml2vocab
14:22:08 <gb> Created -> action #215 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/215
14:22:11 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:22:11 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask if rules from https://www.w3.org/2016/08/namespaces/ apply
14:22:12 <eBremer> ... I will talk to ivan herman who is developing the YAML tool
14:22:40 <eBremer> elf-pavlik: are those vocabs drafts that working group can freely modify?
14:22:57 <eBremer> laurens: they are not recommendation track deliverables
14:23:32 <eBremer> pchampin: they are currently published on slash NS, pavlik you are right and need to double check not breaking any rules
14:24:21 <termontwouter> q+ to repeat second question if necessary
14:24:29 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:24:30 <termontwouter> q-
14:24:30 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask about domain defns
14:24:52 <pchampin> also, those 2016 guidelines may be taken with a grain of salt; the management of /ns/ has evolved, especially since its migration to github
14:25:13 <eBremer> acoburn: wouter you mentioned this question about the domain
14:25:56 <eBremer> termontwouter: concernewd hjust like with the one-offs thaty is translated to lioke rdfs domains or all restrictions this would be wrong semantically
14:26:21 <eBremer> acoburn: allows you to create a context-dependent jsonld..
14:26:46 <eBremer> ...  the context will have those properties at the top level and sort of global
14:26:48 <termontwouter> q+
14:27:30 <eBremer> ... creates adjacency context where those properties are only available within the context of an object that is type access
14:27:37 <pchampin> q+
14:28:02 <eBremer> termonwouter: if we fix the domains that they are pointing at the correct entity
14:28:14 <laurens> ack termontwouter
14:28:17 <laurens> ack pchampin
14:28:44 <eBremer> pchampin: maybe because of side effect we are out of trouble
14:29:18 <acoburn> q+ to mention that this is because of "external: true"
14:29:24 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:29:24 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to mention that this is because of "external: true"
14:29:32 <eBremer> ... leftover brand is a foreign property borrowwed from another vocabulary.  Not to say tool doesnt need to be improved but we are okay here
14:30:00 <laurens> q?
14:30:15 <eBremer> acoburn: because external colon true property that we have in those cases. we dont define any of these terms in the total vocabulary
14:30:44 <eBremer> acoburn: during pr creation I think produced documents we all want
14:31:19 <eBremer> ... lets revist the domain issue, but because external true it isnt affected by the issue wouter brought up
14:31:52 <eBremer> termonwouter: if tool updates, we need to make sure it continues to be correct
14:32:26 <laurens> PROPOSAL: Add terms from Access Request feature to LWS Vocabulary as in https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/199 and subsequently review whether the generated OWL artifacts match our expectations
14:32:27 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/199 -> PR 199 Add terms used by the Access Request feature (by acoburn) [vocabulary]
14:32:31 <termontwouter> s/termonwouter/termontwouter
14:32:38 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:32:39 <gibsonf1> +1
14:32:41 <termontwouter> +1
14:32:42 <eBremer> +1
14:32:42 <pchampin> +1
14:32:42 <acoburn> +1
14:32:44 <laurens> +1
14:32:47 <TallTed> +1
14:33:06 <laurens> RESOLVED: Add terms from Access Request feature to LWS Vocabulary as in https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/199 and subsequently review whether the generated OWL artifacts match our expectations
14:33:29 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:33:29 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Vote: Adjust JSON-LD Context section -> PR#187 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/187 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:34:36 <eBremer> acoburn: changed how context inlined so resemble sid or vc data model
14:34:54 <eBremer> ... in order to address any kind of supply chain issues
14:35:15 <eBremer> ... given context is in-flight, adding any value there it will become out-dated
14:35:43 <eBremer> ... note at bottom suggested how production systems should treat json ld contexts
14:35:52 <laurens> PROPOSAL: Adjust JSON-LD Context section as in https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/187
14:35:52 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/187 -> PR 187 Rework JSON-LD context section (by acoburn) [editorial] [vocabulary]
14:35:53 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:35:54 <laurens> +1
14:35:56 <eBremer> +1
14:35:58 <acoburn> +1
14:36:00 <termontwouter> +1
14:36:00 <gibsonf1> +1
14:36:07 <TallTed> +1
14:36:10 <pchampin> +1
14:36:22 <laurens> RESOLVED: Adjust JSON-LD Context section as in https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/187
14:36:37 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:36:37 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Vote: Privacy Considerations in Authentication Suites -> PR#206 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/206 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:36:54 <acoburn> ACTION: acoburn to create issue to add a content digest to the JSON-LD section
14:36:55 <gb> Created -> action #216 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/216
14:37:35 <eBremer> acoburn: privacy considerations sections were empty
14:37:52 <eBremer> ... respec encountering failures because there were empty
14:38:03 <eBremer> ... this is non-normative
14:38:39 <eBremer> ... signed tokens such as id tokens or saml assertions are generally not encrypted
14:39:05 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask if respec has some transclusion option, i recall two considerations in two suites were identical
14:39:17 <eBremer> ... ted you were finding your browser not rendering something properly...seems to be artifact of the preview system rather that w3c site
14:39:29 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:39:29 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask if respec has some transclusion option, i recall two considerations in two suites were identical
14:39:32 <eBremer> tallted: correct.  I have only seen in preview
14:40:03 <eBremer> elf-pavlik: two paragraphs identical in two documents, some how keep them in-sync
14:40:32 <eBremer> ... idp tracking IPs of requests and verifiers
14:41:20 <eBremer> acoburn: documents all self-contain for simplicity.  respec can load additional files but no longer self-contained
14:41:36 <eBremer> ... would add a different level of complexity.  not sure if it is worth it
14:42:06 <eBremer> ... i agree.  if we have in future it may be worth considering
14:42:12 <eBremer> laurens: i agree
14:42:21 <laurens> PROPOSAL: Add privacy considerations to authentication suites per https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/206
14:42:22 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/206 -> PR 206 Add privacy considerations to the authentication suites (by acoburn) [security-privacy]
14:42:27 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:42:28 <laurens> +1
14:42:29 <acoburn> +1
14:42:30 <gibsonf1> +1
14:42:30 <termontwouter> +1
14:42:30 <eBremer> +1
14:42:37 <ryey> +1
14:42:38 <TallTed> +1
14:42:41 <pchampin> +1
14:42:52 <laurens> RESOLVED: Add privacy considerations to authentication suites per https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/206
14:43:03 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:43:03 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- Vote: Remove ACL references -> PR#203 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/203 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:43:11 <rbreitman> rbreitman has joined #lws
14:43:35 <termontwouter> +100
14:44:00 <laurens> PROPOSAL: Remove acl link header examples as in https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/203
14:44:00 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/203 -> PR 203 remove acl references (by ebremer)
14:44:01 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:44:03 <termontwouter> +1
14:44:03 <eBremer> +1
14:44:03 <acoburn> +1
14:44:04 <gibsonf1> +1
14:44:05 <laurens> +1
14:44:09 <ryey> +1
14:44:15 <pchampin> +1
14:44:15 <TallTed> +1
14:44:27 <laurens> RESOLVED: Remove acl link header examples as in https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/203
14:44:42 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:44:42 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- Discussion: Clarify Slug header references in protocol -> Issue#94 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/94 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:46:17 <elf-pavlik> q+ to support not mentioning it and focusing on use cases from people who ask for it
14:46:37 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:46:37 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to support not mentioning it and focusing on use cases from people who ask for it
14:46:39 <eBremer> laurens: I would also support not mentioning it in the text
14:46:40 <termontwouter> +1 from me as well for not mentioning it
14:46:47 <eBremer> elf-pavlik: I also support this
14:46:57 <pchampin> q+
14:47:06 <eBremer> ... clarify what they try to accomplish using it
14:47:12 <laurens> ack pchampin
14:47:15 <eBremer> ... focus use-case first
14:48:09 <termontwouter> q+ to suggest adding it as an optional capability
14:48:16 <eBremer> pchampin: playing devil-advocate, not belong in sspec but best practices. If server supports it that we describe in storage description
14:48:28 <gibsonf1> +1
14:48:40 <elf-pavlik> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/207
14:48:41 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/207 -> Issue 207 Define capabilties affecting Resource Identification (URI allocation) (by elf-pavlik)
14:48:47 <eBremer> laurens: fits into discovery mechanism of lws but not require us to specify the slug header
14:48:48 <laurens> ack termontwouter
14:48:48 <Zakim> termontwouter, you wanted to suggest adding it as an optional capability
14:48:52 <elf-pavlik> q+
14:48:53 <termontwouter> q-
14:48:57 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:48:57 <eBremer> ... we have some work there
14:49:08 <pchampin> +1
14:49:38 <eBremer> laurens: some of us supporting not mentioning it in the specification text
14:49:46 <acoburn> q+ to ask about next steps
14:49:51 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:49:51 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask about next steps
14:50:28 <elf-pavlik> +1 PR to remove current text
14:50:52 <eBremer> acoburn: if folks agree, step 1 remove current inclusion of slug headers, but separately, as we look into the capability definitions, we add it there
14:50:55 <laurens> ACTION: laurens to remove mentions of the Slug header from the LWS protocol text
14:50:56 <gb> Created -> action #217 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/217
14:51:28 <laurens> zakim, next agendum
14:51:28 <Zakim> agendum 9 -- Discussion: Clarify ETag header references in protocol -> Issue#62 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/62 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:52:23 <eBremer> acoburn: in current text, we discuss and encourage use, etags are only one concurrency control
14:52:49 <eBremer> ... i want to generalize what we define for concurrency control
14:53:49 <laurens> q?
14:54:11 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
14:54:13 <elf-pavlik> q+ to mention state property in solid notifications
14:54:17 <eBremer> present+
14:54:19 <eBremer> scribe+
14:54:39 <gibsonf1> +1 to picking eTag as winner
14:54:41 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:54:41 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention state property in solid notifications
14:54:58 <acoburn> q+ to mention weak/strong ETag requirements and complexity
14:54:59 <termontwouter> q+ to suggest a capabilities approach here as well
14:55:12 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:55:12 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to mention weak/strong ETag requirements and complexity
14:55:27 <eBremer> elf-pavlik: keep general concurrency control or synct to keep notification in mind
14:55:29 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:55:55 <eBremer> acoburn: fedora invented their own cause they were not able to use strong identifiers for etags
14:56:01 <gibsonf1> q+
14:56:01 <eBremer> ... so it didnt work properly
14:56:41 <eBremer> ... there are CRDTs and other mechanisms that might be availablke
14:56:49 <eBremer> s/availablke/available
14:57:06 <laurens> ack termontwouter
14:57:06 <Zakim> termontwouter, you wanted to suggest a capabilities approach here as well
14:57:25 <acoburn> +1 to approach with capabilities
14:57:33 <eBremer> termontwouter: approach from capability discovery.
14:57:49 <laurens> ack gibsonf
14:57:53 <eBremer> ... suggest other concurrency mechanisms in the same way
14:58:48 <eBremer> gibsonf1: on etag issue, outside of PUT, which means when you create not necc declaring any representation
14:59:08 <eBremer> ... we solved it as its supported by all browsers
14:59:44 <eBremer> acoburn: thats great.  were extensive convo back in the day to do with the combo of conneg
15:00:11 <eBremer> gibsonf1: we include rep in the etag as part of that solution
15:00:44 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/03-lws-minutes.html acoburn
15:08:07 <TallTed> trying
15:08:13 <TallTed> s/trying//