13:49:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:49:30 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/09/14-lws-irc
13:49:32 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #lws
13:49:59 <acoburn> acoburn has changed the topic to: Linked Web Storage WG - 2026-09-14 - https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260914T100000/
13:50:12 <acoburn> zakim, start meeting
13:50:12 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:50:14 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
13:50:25 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260914T100000/#agenda
13:50:25 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:50:25 <agendabot> agenda+ Introductions and announcements
13:50:25 <agendabot> agenda+ Re-chartering status: https://w3c.github.io/lws-wg-charter/
13:50:25 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: TPAC agenda -> Issue#176 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/176
13:50:26 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: managing implementation reports -> PR#171 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/171
13:50:29 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: moving resources between containers -> PR#237 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/237
13:50:32 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: automated changelogs -> PR#243 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/243
13:50:35 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: topic-based notifications -> PR#242 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/242
13:50:38 <agendabot> agenda+ Implementation Feedback
13:51:10 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
13:51:15 <acoburn> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/08/31-lws-minutes.html
13:51:26 <acoburn> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/09/21-lws-minutes.html
13:51:31 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
13:51:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/14-lws-minutes.html acoburn
13:51:41 <acoburn> chair: acoburn
13:58:18 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #lws
14:02:54 <jeremycaine> jeremycaine has joined #lws
14:03:50 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
14:03:57 <gibsonf1> present+
14:04:01 <laurens> laurens has joined #lws
14:04:04 <laurens> present/
14:04:05 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
14:04:07 <laurens> present+
14:04:20 <Rbreitman> Rbreitman has joined #lws
14:04:39 <Rbreitman> present+
14:04:46 <ryey> present+
14:04:54 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 1
14:04:54 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions and announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:04:57 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:05:03 <jeswr> q+
14:05:09 <jeswr> q-
14:05:10 <jeswr> present+
14:05:22 <acoburn> present+
14:05:22 <jeremycaine> present+
14:05:27 <jeswr> scribe+
14:05:37 <TallTed> present+
14:06:00 <acoburn> zakim, next agendum
14:06:00 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Re-chartering status: https://w3c.github.io/lws-wg-charter/ -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:06:25 <elf-pavlik> present+
14:07:12 <jeswr> acoburn: Our first charter ended last week. We are currently in an administrative extension that runs until mid Janruary, giving us time to complete the next formal charter.
14:08:09 <jeswr> ... In a recharter, there is a refinement of the charter - then a vote by all W3C AC reps on the new charter
14:08:16 <jeswr> ... We need a minimum of 5% of all AC reps in favour
14:08:26 <jeswr> ... Please contact AC reps you know to ask them to vote
14:08:45 <jeswr> ... We also need to avoid formal objections
14:09:02 <jeswr> ... To avoid formal objections, we should keep as close to the original charter which was already approved by the AC
14:09:03 <AZ> AZ has joined #lws
14:09:06 <AZ> present+
14:09:21 <jeswr> ... The refinement period has just started. It runs a minimum of 4 weeks.
14:09:51 <jeswr> ... Following that will be the 4 week voting period. TPAC happens to occur during that period.
14:10:01 <acoburn> https://github.com/w3c/lws-wg-charter
14:10:50 <jeswr> ... the above is a link to the formal charter. pchampin generated this by taking the existing charter and using automated tooling to update it - including with deliverables already completed.
14:11:04 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask if publishing first implementation reports would be useful as a proof of WG progress
14:11:33 <jeswr> ... note that it is technically out of scope of this working group to work on this charter - though I expect everyone here to be interested in it.
14:12:15 <jeswr> ... Other updates to the charter include noting that use-cases have now been developed, and that the thread model document is under development
14:12:21 <acoburn> ack next
14:12:22 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask if publishing first implementation reports would be useful as a proof of WG progress
14:12:33 <jeswr> ... please open PRs to modify the charter as required
14:13:26 <jeswr> elf-pavlik: There are 3 open source and 3 closed source implementations that I know of. Should we mention this in the charter or develop an implementation report which is referenced in the charter to show progress.
14:14:20 <jeswr> acoburn: Evidencing implementations is a plus. We should already have enough in a charter for it to pass. An implementation report would be a welcome addition.
14:14:47 <jeswr> elf-pavlik: So should the test suite task force prioritise developing an implementation report?
14:15:09 <jeswr> acoburn: Implementation reports are already on the agenda for later. Lets discuss then.
14:15:23 <acoburn> zakim, next agendum
14:15:23 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Discussion: TPAC agenda -> Issue#176 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/176 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:16:27 <jeremycaine> unfortunately I cannot join TPAC in-person
14:16:36 <jeswr> acoburn: TPAC is in 5 weeks, the final week of October. I will be there in person. Remote attendance is available. LWS has slots on Tuesday October 27 afternoon, and Thursday October 29 all day - Dublin time.
14:16:50 <elf-pavlik> I will join remotely, already registered, my application to W3C travel fund didn't make the cut
14:17:03 <jeswr> ... we should have an agenda in advance of the session
14:17:06 <acoburn> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/176
14:17:06 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/176 -> Issue 176 TPAC 2026 Agenda (by acoburn) [needs-discussion]
14:17:34 <jeswr> ... the issue linked above is a draft of the agenda. Please add other topics there as you see fit.
14:17:58 <jeswr> ... we should focus on what needs to happen between TPAC and LWS going into CR status
14:19:50 <elf-pavlik> q+ to recomment not rushing CR without mostly complete impl reports
14:20:21 <jeswr> ... This is also relevant to the re-charter. I suggest we want to go to CR status ~1 month after the new charter starts and Rec status after ~1 year.
14:20:31 <acoburn> ack next
14:20:32 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to recomment not rushing CR without mostly complete impl reports
14:20:45 <jeremycaine> q+
14:21:48 <jeswr> elf-pavlik: Cutting a CR and then implementing is an outdated W3C process. CR also ties our hands on how much we can change the spec. I would therefore suggest we do not rush going to CR; and try and get good implementation coverage and implementation reports first.
14:23:08 <elf-pavlik> I think we need to aim for a sweet spot with both dynamics in mind
14:23:17 <jeswr> acoburn: Generally the W3C process wants 1 year between CR and TR. CR is that point where we say to the world that we would like to invite people to create implementation. It is important that we broadcast that implementation request. We want to make sure not to push CR out too far that it jepodises us going into TR.
14:23:32 <acoburn> ack next
14:24:36 <jeswr> jeremycaine: If you are an implementor, do you know how to do both authentication & authorization?
14:26:27 <jeswr> acoburn: Authentication is covered. For authorisation we have access requests & grants defined. Authorisation is a moving target so we don't want to get detailed in the specification and box us into a corner as it could be outdated by the time we get to REC. All we talk about in the spec is how an Authorization server interacts, not a specific
14:26:27 <jeswr> access control language. At the moment the access control language is an implementation decision.
14:26:40 <jeswr> jeremycaine: Does the charter need tightening to explain that?
14:27:09 <elf-pavlik> q+ to suggest that test suite and impl reports should clarify a lot of those questions
14:27:17 <jeswr> acoburn: Open a PR if you think it does. Note that a charter doesn't need to be particularly detailed - that is what the spec is for.
14:27:22 <acoburn> ack next
14:27:23 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to suggest that test suite and impl reports should clarify a lot of those questions
14:28:15 <jeswr> elf-pavlik: The test suite can also help unearth where gaps in the spec are - and where it lacks clarity.
14:28:36 <acoburn> zakim, next agendum
14:28:36 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Discussion: managing implementation reports -> PR#171 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/171 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:28:54 <TallTed> s/access control language. At the moment the access control language is an implementation decision/... access control language. At the moment the access control language is an implementation decision/
14:29:09 <jeswr> acoburn: We have an open pull request for tracking implementations.
14:29:20 <jeswr> ... we have not clearly defined how we plan to manage implementation reports
14:29:37 <jeswr> ... the current PR is just a markdown file listing high level details
14:29:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/14-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:30:11 <jeswr> ... Can we get 171 merged and improve from there?
14:30:13 <jeswr> q+
14:30:30 <jeswr> elf-pavlik: This is a first draft. I don't expect it to last long in this form.
14:31:06 <TallTed> s|present/||
14:31:08 <jeswr> ... we can make it more granular, e.g., a matrix of which implementations support which requirements
14:31:13 <jeswr> ... in time
14:31:15 <acoburn> ack next
14:31:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/14-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:31:19 <acoburn> scribe+
14:31:46 <acoburn> jeswr: agree, let's get this nudged forward and then we can build out a more detailed report
14:32:25 <acoburn> scribe-
14:32:51 <jeswr> acoburn: jeswr can you please make sure this gets merged
14:32:54 <acoburn> zakim, next agendum
14:32:54 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Discussion: moving resources between containers -> PR#237 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/237 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:32:55 <jeswr> jeswr: yes
14:33:49 <elf-pavlik> q+ to offer tl;dr of my feedback
14:33:58 <acoburn> ack next
14:33:59 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to offer tl;dr of my feedback
14:34:02 <jeswr> laurens: There is feedback from elf-pavlik and @termontwouter that I have not yet addressed on 237
14:34:13 <jeswr> ... There has been little feedback from others, please feedback ASAP if you have suggestions.
14:34:28 <acoburn> q+ to ask if laurens has particular questions for the group to help move forward
14:34:52 <jeswr> elf-pavlik: We need to tightly couple the normative requirements; i.e. if you advertise that you support moving, you MUST implement it.
14:35:12 <jeswr> laurens: Yes. I think we will need some refining and fine-tuning here.
14:35:15 <acoburn> ack next
14:35:16 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask if laurens has particular questions for the group to help move forward
14:35:21 <jeswr> ... I will have another go in the next couple of days
14:35:43 <jeswr> ... My main question to the working group is whether the group requests
14:35:53 <jeswr> ... changes to the current mechanism that is proposed and whether there
14:35:58 <jeswr> ... are alternatives you would like explored
14:36:07 <jeswr> ... if not I will bring this PR to reviewable status this week
14:36:29 <jeswr> acoburn: There are not many major features we have not yet added
14:36:38 <acoburn> zakim, next agendum
14:36:38 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Discussion: automated changelogs -> PR#243 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/243 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:36:40 <jeswr> ... this is an important one to clarify before we go to CR status
14:37:00 <jeswr> acoburn: jeswr opened two editorial pull requests in the last week
14:37:19 <acoburn> scribe+
14:37:21 <jeswr> ... 243 is about adding a changelog.
14:37:55 <acoburn> jeswr: last meeting's discussion including having a changelog to help implementers
14:38:21 <acoburn> ... this PR includes a diff of the spec using tooling presented by pchampin
14:38:34 <acoburn> ... along with generative AI to be reviewed by editors
14:39:00 <acoburn> ... question for the group: is a changelog needed, since the implementers seem to be in or close to the WG
14:39:04 <acoburn> scribe-
14:39:08 <gibsonf1> q+ to ask about LLM use
14:39:12 <acoburn> ack next
14:39:13 <Zakim> gibsonf, you wanted to ask about LLM use
14:39:59 <jeswr> gibsonf: LLMs will potentially make a mess of things because they hallucinate
14:40:04 <elf-pavlik> q+ to mention that hopefully we'll be making a lot of changes to spec based on impl feedback
14:40:19 <jeswr> acoburn: Editor review can mitigate issues related to hallucination.
14:40:29 <gibsonf1> git diff is a good way to see changes
14:40:30 <jeswr> q+
14:41:32 <acoburn> ack next
14:41:33 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention that hopefully we'll be making a lot of changes to spec based on impl feedback
14:41:34 <jeswr> ... To the "is it needed question" I think it is too early; and not overly useful since the implementors
14:41:34 <jeswr> ... are in this group
14:41:50 <jeswr> elf-pavlik: I hope we will be making a lot of changes to the spec based on
14:42:00 <jeswr> ... implementors feedback.
14:42:10 <jeswr> ... For that reason I think it is good for implementors to track.
14:42:23 <jeswr> ... The easier it is to track them and follow them. The better.
14:42:25 <acoburn> ack next
14:42:31 <acoburn> scribe+
14:43:06 <acoburn> jeswr: two comments -- for Fred's comment, there will be an editor in the loop to address hallucinations
14:43:34 <acoburn> ... to the question of "is it needed", I suggest that we wait until there is a flood of feedback
14:43:49 <acoburn> ... once we start getting feedback that will be helpful
14:43:55 <elf-pavlik> SGTM
14:44:02 <acoburn> ... the natural starting point would be when we reach CR status
14:44:19 <acoburn> scribe-
14:44:31 <jeswr> acoburn: Having the starting point at CR status would be great.
14:44:46 <acoburn> ack next
14:45:00 <acoburn> zakim, next agendum
14:45:00 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- Discussion: topic-based notifications -> PR#242 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/242 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:45:38 <acoburn> scribe+
14:46:14 <acoburn> jeswr: idea from elf-pavlik -- different parts of spec have different experts
14:46:32 <acoburn> ... those experts can be notified when there are relevant changes
14:46:45 <acoburn> scribe-
14:47:05 <jeswr> acoburn: For this repository I just turn on watch so I get alerted to everything
14:47:11 <jeswr> ... I do not find that to be overwhelming
14:47:19 <jeswr> ... as a chair that is approrpiate for me
14:47:28 <jeswr> ... the question is whether there is anyone in the group that
14:47:28 <elf-pavlik> q+ to tie it to experience from issue triage
14:47:39 <acoburn> ack next
14:47:40 <jeswr> ... finds watching overwhelming and would benefit from this
14:47:41 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to tie it to experience from issue triage
14:48:01 <jeswr> elf-pavlik: I proposed this during issue triage. Notifications is one part of the problem.
14:48:13 <jeswr> ... The second is about ownership in resolving issues.
14:48:20 <jeswr> ... as some issues have been open for a long time
14:48:28 <jeswr> ... and some are just open ended discussions
14:48:47 <jeswr> q+
14:49:07 <jeswr> elf-pavlik: My end goal here is to make sure that
14:49:15 <jeswr> ... people are comitted to moving issues forward
14:49:16 <acoburn> ack next
14:49:19 <acoburn> scribe+
14:50:04 <acoburn> jeswr: code owners wasn't implemented since not everyone has write access to repo
14:50:26 <acoburn> ... we could automate creating assignees for issues and PRs
14:50:36 <elf-pavlik> q+
14:50:43 <acoburn> ack next
14:50:46 <acoburn> scribe-
14:51:10 <jeswr> elf-pavlik: Yes that sounds good alongside an issue template
14:51:23 <jeswr> ... that lets someone specify the topic that an issue pertains to
14:52:14 <jeswr> acoburn: In other W3C repos I have seen a bot ping different users
14:52:14 <jeswr> ... saying "this touches this extension of the codebase - X should look at it"
14:52:14 <jeswr> ... if useful we could do that.
14:52:32 <acoburn> s/other W3C/other non-W3C/
14:52:39 <jeswr> jeswr: I'll look into setting up the bot style approach
14:52:47 <jeswr> ... and time-box as it is not high priority
14:52:50 <acoburn> zakim, next agendum
14:52:50 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- Implementation Feedback -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:53:09 <jeswr> acoburn: We aim for this to be a recurring topic to give time
14:53:20 <jeswr> ... for implementors to give feedback to the group
14:53:29 <jeswr> ... is there anyone who would like to give feedback today?
14:54:05 <jeswr> ... There seems to be no feedback for today.
14:54:22 <jeswr> scribe-
14:54:34 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:54:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/14-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:56:10 <acoburn> present+ gibsonf
14:56:13 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:56:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/14-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:58:13 <TallTed> Zakim, end meeting
14:58:13 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been gibsonf, laurens, Rbreitman, ryey, jeswr, acoburn, jeremycaine, TallTed, elf-pavlik, AZ
14:58:15 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:58:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/14-lws-minutes.html Zakim
14:58:18 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, TallTed; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
14:58:20 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
14:58:20 <RRSAgent> I see no action items