13:58:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:58:32 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/09/21-lws-irc
13:58:37 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #lws
13:58:57 <acoburn> acoburn has changed the topic to: Linked Web Storage WG - 2026-09-21 - https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260921T100000/
13:59:03 <acoburn> zakim, start meeting
13:59:03 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:59:05 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
13:59:17 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260921T100000/#agenda
13:59:17 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:59:17 <agendabot> agenda+ Introduction and announcements
13:59:17 <agendabot> agenda+ Charter timeline proposal at -> PR#10 https://github.com/w3c/lws-wg-charter/pull/10
13:59:17 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Clarify DID support in SSI-CID authentication suite -> PR#233 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/233
13:59:18 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Add lws:StorageResource to vocabulary -> PR#234 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/234
13:59:21 <agendabot> agenda+ Test Suite status update
13:59:23 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
13:59:24 <agendabot> agenda+ Threat Model status update
13:59:26 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: subject_identifier_types_supported -> PR#227 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/227
13:59:29 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: prepare LWS Index document for FPWD -> PR#249 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/249
13:59:32 <agendabot> agenda+ Implementation Feedback
13:59:32 <acoburn> chair: acoburn
13:59:48 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
13:59:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/21-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:00:18 <acoburn> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/09/14-lws-minutes.html
14:00:30 <acoburn> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/09/28-lws-minutes.html
14:00:38 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:00:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/21-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:01:14 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
14:01:23 <eBremer> present+
14:01:28 <acoburn> present+
14:01:44 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
14:01:55 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #lws
14:02:18 <elf-pavlik> present+
14:02:27 <langsamu> present+
14:02:47 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
14:02:54 <gibsonf1> present+
14:03:24 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
14:03:36 <ericP> present+
14:03:56 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
14:04:00 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:04:36 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 1
14:04:36 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduction and announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:04:45 <ryey> present+
14:04:59 <rbreitman> rbreitman has joined #lws
14:05:04 <TallTed> present+
14:05:08 <rbreitman> present+
14:05:23 <acoburn> zakim, next agendu
14:05:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next agendu', acoburn
14:05:27 <acoburn> zakim, next agendum
14:05:27 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, acoburn
14:05:29 <ryey> scribe+
14:05:38 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 2
14:05:38 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Charter timeline proposal at -> PR#10 https://github.com/w3c/lws-wg-charter/pull/10 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:05:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/21-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:06:09 <ryey> we are in a charter refinement period, until Oct 5th
14:06:17 <ryey> acoburn: we are in a charter refinement period, until Oct 5th
14:06:26 <ryey> ... effectively 2 more weeks
14:06:56 <ryey> one specific item is the proposed timeline
14:07:03 <ryey> ... one specific item is the proposed timeline
14:07:23 <ryey> ... we don't effectily need a on month delay for the first teleconference
14:07:38 <pchampin> present+
14:08:07 <ryey> ... hope is to move to CR for most deliverables in aaaaaa months
14:08:21 <TallTed> q+
14:08:34 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask why 2 months given lack of impl feedback until now
14:08:54 <ryey> ... CR 2 months for most things; then a little bit further for LWS Index in 6 months; then 12 months for Primer and Threat Model doc
14:08:55 <acoburn> ack next
14:09:11 <ryey> TallTed: I threw a comment
14:09:34 <ryey> ... the sooner we know, the better
14:10:28 <ryey> TallTed: using a different model doesn't help
14:11:23 <ryey> acoburn: I would love to have something when the next charter begin (e.g. in January). We may set some tentative dates for that.
14:11:31 <ryey> TallTed: tentative dates sounds good
14:12:03 <ryey> ... it's easier to have a block of time, and put it to a calendar, to be easier to see
14:12:13 <ryey> acoburn: we can group things in a more coherent way
14:12:25 <ryey> ... maybe also a Gannt chart or something
14:12:37 <acoburn> ack next
14:12:38 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask why 2 months given lack of impl feedback until now
14:12:42 <ryey> ... anyway, I hope we as a group to agreen on a timeframe
14:13:01 <ryey> elf-pavlik: the comment of having CR and then candidate is quite outdated
14:13:19 <ryey> ... I suggest, by the end of the year, by par, have TM as a draft
14:13:56 <ryey> ... charter + 2 month as the latest for draft; then the next 1-2 months for hearing feedback
14:14:11 <ryey> ... easier to have things and gather information. We can go earlier than schedule, which is good
14:14:47 <ryey> acoburn: I feel there are groups implementing now. We are getting feedback, but just in a different form
14:15:09 <TallTed> CR is like "broad*er* review"
14:15:14 <elf-pavlik> how about aiming for +4 and if we are ready +2 than great!
14:15:16 <ryey> ... important thing about going for CR is that it's a public announcement. it says we have something, and ready to get feedback
14:15:44 <ryey> ... I would be concerned about moving that out, in that sense
14:16:16 <ryey> ... another thing about CR -- yes, it's harder to get changes
14:16:30 <TallTed> s/Gannt/Gantt/g
14:17:04 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask about making major change to existing feature after CR
14:17:10 <acoburn> ack next
14:17:11 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask about making major change to existing feature after CR
14:17:14 <ryey> ... something easily gets removed now. once in CR, it's more about adding new features.
14:17:17 <TallTed> q+
14:18:03 <ryey> elf-pavlik: I'm not so concerned about adding new features. I'm more concerned about getting feedback, and find something need a better design, and would like to make a big turn to the feature
14:18:10 <acoburn> ack next
14:18:26 <ryey> TallTed: it's not necessarily easy to remove either
14:18:57 <ryey> ... if we mark thing as at risk, it's easier to get removed; so the other way around
14:19:05 <pchampin> q+
14:19:10 <ryey> s/; so the/; so is the/
14:19:36 <ryey> ... note implementation detail and spec are different
14:20:13 <ryey> ... we may put some algorithms in the spec, but that's just illustrative. As long as something works in the same way for inputs and outputs, that's fine
14:20:41 <acoburn> ack next
14:21:22 <ryey> pchampin: I understand elf-pavlik's comment is not about implementation details
14:21:33 <ryey> ... note we have 12 months
14:21:57 <TallTed> q+
14:22:07 <elf-pavlik> thanks pchampin
14:22:09 <acoburn> ack next
14:22:11 <ryey> ... sometimes feedback comes and we change things. that's why we don't set it as 28 days
14:22:26 <ryey> TallTed: I would suggest to put min and max period for the time plan
14:22:49 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 3
14:22:49 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Vote: Clarify DID support in SSI-CID authentication suite -> PR#233 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/233 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:22:50 <ryey> acoburn:
14:23:34 <ryey> acoburn: we want to clarify authentication suit and DID
14:23:54 <ryey> ... we discussed last week. it turned out it's non-normative notes
14:24:16 <acoburn> PROPOSAL: Merge DID support clarification https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/233
14:24:16 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/233 -> PR 233 Clarify DID support in the SSI-CID authentication suite (by acoburn)
14:24:28 <gibsonf1> +1
14:24:34 <acoburn> +1
14:24:35 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:24:36 <eBremer> +1
14:24:40 <pchampin> +1
14:24:48 <TallTed> +0.5
14:24:52 <ryey> ... it effectively only relates to DID URIs
14:25:23 <acoburn> RESOLVED: Merge DID support clarification https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/233
14:25:32 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 4
14:25:32 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Vote: Add lws:StorageResource to vocabulary -> PR#234 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/234 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:25:37 <ryey> +0.5 (not an expert in the granules; generally looks fine)
14:26:04 <ryey> acoburn: this one adds a lws:StorageResource class to the vocab
14:26:41 <ryey> eBremer: makes a separate of StorageResource, and closes #220
14:26:42 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/220 -> Issue 220 StorageResource definition (by acoburn) [vocabulary] [access-request] [pr-exists]
14:27:30 <acoburn> PROPOSAL: Merge add lws:StorageResource to vocabulary https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/234
14:27:30 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/234 -> PR 234 Add lws:StorageResource to the vocabulary (by ebremer)
14:27:38 <gibsonf1> +1
14:27:40 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:27:41 <eBremer> +1
14:27:41 <acoburn> +1
14:28:02 <ryey> +1
14:28:11 <ericP> +1
14:28:25 <TallTed> +1
14:28:31 <acoburn> RESOLVED: Merge add lws:StorageResource to vocabulary https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/234
14:28:37 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask a quick question about linksets / meta and containment
14:28:50 <elf-pavlik> q-
14:29:04 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 5
14:29:04 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Test Suite status update -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:29:43 <elf-pavlik> https://github.com/lws-contrib/lws-test-suite
14:29:55 <ryey> acoburn: there is a test suite meeting in 1.5h. test suite group please share
14:30:55 <ryey> langsamu: Following last demonstration, I'm extending to send HTTP request to servers, receiving responses, etc
14:31:07 <ryey> ... I'm also in the test suite task force
14:31:07 <eBremer> https://github.com/ebremer/touchstone
14:31:41 <ryey> ... going to make the repo public, and make it a docker
14:32:15 <ryey> ... doing demonstration
14:33:08 <ryey> ... started eBremer's server, run my test suite, see test reports from there
14:33:52 <ryey> ... sending HTTP requests to inside the docker; output is in the report
14:33:58 <TallTed> Just for awareness,"LWS Test Suite TF" conflicts with "FedID WG - DC API" and "VCWG Task Force: Barcodes, Data Integrity, Forgery Defense, Bitstring Status List" (and maybe more). I'm triple booked and expect to be present at the last of these.
14:34:13 <elf-pavlik> q+ to mention 2 recent PRs
14:34:19 <ericP> q+ to ask if eBremer's impl is embedded int the docker
14:34:32 <acoburn> ack next
14:34:33 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention 2 recent PRs
14:35:04 <ryey> elf-pavlik: sharing my screen
14:35:23 <ryey> ... I made two PRs for test suite
14:35:32 <langsamu> https://github.com/langsamu/LWS.net
14:35:34 <ryey> ... I made it very easy to run
14:35:45 <langsamu> ^^ will move to lws-contrib soon.
14:36:12 <ryey> ... you don't need to have language environment in your host; you just have a docker
14:36:36 <ryey> ... the idea is to allow running test suite in CI, and people can also run it locally
14:36:51 <ryey> ... We also made it customizable through vars
14:37:25 <ryey> ... We have an idea to have tests as a DAG, and run them
14:37:42 <ryey> ... we can't test them in isolation, but can do other advanced things
14:38:20 <acoburn> ack next
14:38:21 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if eBremer's impl is embedded int the docker
14:38:22 <TallTed> q+
14:38:27 <ryey> ... welcome to join the meeting in 1hour, if you have any comments or questions
14:38:49 <ryey> ericP: it's all in a docker? what does that mean?
14:39:17 <gibsonf1> q+
14:39:24 <ryey> langsamu: it's in one run, but two parallel tasks; one clones and runs eBremer's code; the other runs test
14:39:43 <ryey> ericP: are instructions to run it outside of Docker, for assisting debugging?
14:39:59 <ryey> langsamu: not yet; but everything is command line
14:40:22 <ryey> ... I'll give instructions of prerequists of how to run it, e.g. dependencies
14:40:25 <acoburn> elf-pavlik: you might need to drop and re-join. I am unable to change the screen sharing
14:41:18 <acoburn> ack next
14:41:21 <ryey> eBremer: there is a MCP to control
14:41:38 <ryey> TallTed: this looks great; better than some other things I saw
14:41:56 <acoburn> ack next
14:41:57 <pchampin> +1 that looks great
14:41:59 <ryey> s/I saw/I saw elsewhere/
14:42:25 <ryey> gibsonf1: will be possible to run it over the internet?
14:43:00 <ryey> eBremer: I have several servers. I want to allow agent to inspect and improve
14:43:28 <ryey> langsamu: test suite is a http client. I promise won't do backdoors.
14:43:42 <ericP> q+ to mention that auth may require some back-doors unless we leverage some authn requests
14:43:53 <ryey> gibsconf1: in the test, is there no possibility of halluscination?
14:44:01 <ryey> langsamu: everything is determinstic
14:44:20 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 6
14:44:20 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Threat Model status update -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:44:42 <elf-pavlik> q+
14:44:49 <ryey> acoburn: where is it at?
14:44:59 <acoburn> ack next
14:45:00 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to mention that auth may require some back-doors unless we leverage some authn requests
14:45:07 <acoburn> ack next
14:45:08 <ericP> q-
14:45:19 <ryey> elf-pavlik: I've been focusing on test suites; not a lot in the threat modelling for now
14:45:31 <ryey> q+
14:45:43 <acoburn> ack next
14:45:45 <acoburn> scribe+
14:46:18 <ryey> never mind. I'll type
14:46:27 <acoburn> scribe-
14:46:56 <ryey> No a lot of updates from my side, as I was trapped in a lot of things... gradually getting out of that . should be able to do more soon
14:48:09 <ryey> acoburn: the tentative timeline for TM would be later than Test Suite
14:48:13 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 7
14:48:13 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- Discussion: subject_identifier_types_supported -> PR#227 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/227 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:48:18 <ryey> (hope I heard it right)
14:49:23 <ryey> acoburn: some comments seem to refer to slightly different things, I feel
14:49:25 <elf-pavlik> q+ to suggest merging and a PR can followup to improve it further
14:49:32 <acoburn> ack next
14:49:33 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to suggest merging and a PR can followup to improve it further
14:49:37 <ryey> ... should we spend more time in this, or should we merge it?
14:49:48 <pchampin> +1
14:49:50 <ryey> elf-pavlik: I would support merging
14:50:07 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 8
14:50:07 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- Discussion: prepare LWS Index document for FPWD -> PR#249 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/249 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:50:17 <ryey> acoburn: will try to merge it soone, hopefully tomorrow, but at least this week
14:50:42 <ryey> acoburn: we've not published first public draft for LWS Index yet
14:50:54 <ryey> ... we should make the short name shorter, and more generic.
14:51:11 <ryey> ... anything else before moving to first public working draft?
14:51:31 <ryey> [no comment]
14:52:09 <ryey> acoburn: two issues raised by jeswr, one about json and json-ld; one about server declare URI semantics. anything you want to discuss?
14:52:15 <acoburn> topic: Conneg requirements for JSON/JSON-LD
14:52:22 <ryey> jeswr: go for #246 first
14:52:23 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/246 -> Issue 246 Remove requirement that `application/ld+json` and `application/json` must be framed (by jeswr)
14:52:51 <ryey> ... it requires all three things returned in framed response
14:53:32 <acoburn> q+
14:53:35 <pchampin> q+
14:53:39 <acoburn> ack next
14:53:44 <acoburn> ack next
14:53:54 <ryey> ... the proposal is just to make the server not required to respond some types
14:54:07 <ryey> pchampin: I feel the rationale works for ld+json
14:54:11 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask for use case where client would request ld+json and not lws+json and expect it framed?
14:54:18 <ryey> ... if it's just json, probably the framed version is more appropriate
14:54:43 <ryey> ... I would +1 for json; but for ld+json, I see the point
14:54:57 <acoburn> q+ to ask if this is *only* related to LWS containers
14:55:16 <ryey> jeswr: client requests json, but server almost always responses lws+json
14:55:24 <ryey> ... due to content negotiation
14:55:38 <ryey> ... but about ld+json ...?
14:55:39 <pchampin> I have to think about it :)
14:55:44 <ericP> q+ our spec trumps conneg
14:55:51 <acoburn> ack next
14:55:52 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask for use case where client would request ld+json and not lws+json and expect it framed?
14:56:10 <ryey> elf-pavlik: I agree with this in general. I would like to understand the use case
14:56:34 <ericP> q+ to say our spec trumps conneg. a server could be required to serve the framed when requested
14:56:37 <ryey> ... since media type is define for lws+json. I don't think we need to think about more general cases
14:56:50 <acoburn> ack next
14:56:51 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask if this is *only* related to LWS containers
14:57:02 <ryey> acoburn: I feel this only relates to containers
14:57:14 <ryey> jeswr: also storage descriptions
14:57:33 <ryey> acoburn: if we remove it, it doesn't prevent the server to still support this type of content negotiation
14:57:49 <ryey> ... it just allow the server to do content negotiation differently
14:58:21 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:58:26 <acoburn> ack next
14:58:27 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say our spec trumps conneg. a server could be required to serve the framed when requested
14:58:35 <pchampin> +1, I take back my earlier remark :)
14:58:36 <ryey> jeswr: I would hope servers to always advise the upgrade from json to lws+json, and make it consistent
14:59:11 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:59:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/21-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:59:25 <ryey> ericP: I feel it nice to allow client to request in whatever way, but server responses in specific ways.
14:59:29 <elf-pavlik> isn't application/lws+json already taking care of it?
14:59:48 <ryey> ... maybe also a part about conciseness
15:00:11 <ericP> ericP has left #lws
15:00:35 <acoburn> present+ jeswr
15:00:52 <acoburn> s/gibsconf1/gibsonf1/
15:01:18 <acoburn> rssagent, make minutes