From W3C Wiki

Social Web Working Group Face to Face

07 Jun 2016

See also: IRC log


sandro, tantek, rhiaro, eprodrom,
wilkie, AnnB, Arnaud
eprodrom, tantek
sandro, tantek, rhiaro, cwebber2, paul, aaronpk

Micropub going to CR

eprodrom: It'd be nice to have a going-to-CR checklist

aaronpk: Yesterday we discussed and resolved all the issues
... I'll go ahead and make the required changes
... the big things to do are
... - writing the impl report template
... - some sort of tool for testing


sandro: thoughts on that?>

aaronpk: two tools, for clients and servers
... the test server will be something you can use in testing your client

sandro: so it'll be like your current blog but much more strict about the protocol

aaronpk: i'll do it at some URL, then things will disappear after 48 hours or something
... to test your own server, I'll make a website act like a client -- posting things to your server.
... it'll go and create a note, then try to edit it and make sure it's right

sandro: but you can't GET to see if did the right thing....
... it'd be nice to get Accept: json to see the post data

aaronpk: so that should do it for testing.
... - I'll check the normative references

tantek: publish an updated WD first, please

eprodrom: So we've closed our issues, so the resolution will be ....

sandro: Before going to CR there should be evidence of wide review

aaronpk: IWC discussion

sandro: be good to get it beyond
... evidence is usually random public comments

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: publish new editor's draft of Micropub including changes as per resolutions on 6/6 as new working draft

<rhiaro> +1

<tantek> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<rhiaro> +1

RESOLUTION: publish new editor's draft of Micropub including changes as per resolutions on 6/6 as new working draft

<cwebber2> how about grievous endorsements

tantek: Let's email saying we're at zero issues

sandro: we can do and horiz review
... Doing the Transreq at the same time as AS2 could be nice

re checklist

eprodrom: Should micropub include some design rationale to help address questions about how this relates to JSON-LD, AS2, etc

rhiaro: The objection is likely to be that mp uses the mf vocab not the as2 vocab

eprodrom: yes, there's that, too

tantek: feels like FAQ
... There's evidence there's been work on convergence
... The group is aware there's different vocab approaches at work. And has converged them in some places. But in our parallel approaches work mode, we don't see this as a blocking issue.
... if there's an implementor that comes to the table and finds this a blocking issue, we'd want to know.

sandro: parallel between ap and mp

tantek: things like audience targetting

cwebber2: the ap crud stuff has some addressing happening
... But I think that's future work, largely

sandro: Can I use AS2 with MP

rhiaro: No

aaronpk: If you're using the json format, you're posting the object

cwebber2: can I post a video

rhiaro: MP requires the server to understand h-entry, so no

cwebber2: If you want to just have everything be a side effect....

aaronpk: The tradeoff is whether the spec is generatic and can be used with any vocab or
... leads to interop
... Oauth has this problem. It leaves too much unspecified
... for interop

tantek: It's an antipattern, where the spec doesn't say enough to make things interop

cwebber2: maybe over the next few months it might be a fun experiment to see how far you can get crossing the vocabs and the pub protocols, but it might get us into trouble

rhiaro: I use aaron's mp clients and on the server I do a little rearrangement and treat it as AS2
... That's not a huge burden
... but it's not a complete translation, eg on likes
... it's kind of hacky
... but it doesn't tell a good story of why we don't just do AS2
... it doesn't tell a story about why the group is bothering with this

eprodrom: One reason is if we're going to come together to work together for two years on stand...

sandro: that's the other side
... it sounds like mp has a normative dependency on mf

tantek: we went through this, so MF has parts which are stable enough, to be referencable
... so that matches our model of living spec work

sandro: so micropub has to only normatively reference explicitly stable parts of microformats

tantek: right

eprodrom: are we on track to CR? are there other bits.

aaronpk: Nope

sandro: So it sounds like we need to be completely upfront about "Two Stacks are Better than Zero Stacks"

eprodrom: Does it make sense to hold up MP to be in sync with AP ?

cwebber2: We don't know what AP needs for CR

aaronpk: I'm worried about that timeline
... I have a plan for the validators (eg test suite)

cwebber2: I could maybe have AP reading for CR in a month

aaronpk: I'm concerned about withing for AP when there are unknowns for AP

cwebber2: I think AP (without ASub) I could do it within a month or a month and a half....

eprodrom: I only bring this up because we've talked about this before.

sandro: How about instead we just have each draft in a big box point to the other spec, "THis is one of two SOCIAL APIS from the socwg, with slightly different use cases and approached, implementors should check out the other one"

tantek: (wording above)

<aaronpk> "This is one of two client APIs being produced by the working group with slightly different use cases and approaches. implementers should check out and review the other approach here."

tantek: That would greatly help communicate this to the outside world, yes.
... It helps show that clearly these are clearly from the same group

<cwebber2> microacts?

<cwebber2> (microactgressions?????)

aaronpk: Conclusion is proceed not in lockstep

eprodrom: Let's have cwebber2 on the MP/AS2 transition call, so he knows what to expect

<aaronpk> and the next WD of both activitypub and micropub will include the section linking to each other

sandro: should be fine, yeah, I think

sandro: maybe we can do an editing session on these later today


<tantek> sandro did you mean like this for Micropub?

<sandro> yes

<sandro> tantek, re horizontal review:

<sandro> seven review groups

<eprodrom> cwebber2: have you ever seen ?

<eprodrom> scribe: tantek

<cwebber2> eprodrom: huh, I hadn't seen that!

Webmention next steps

30-45 min on this

aaronpk: what is the goal for the end?

eprodrom: if we have any additional work to move forward, and we know what actions we need to do to move forward, or ok if have no actions to do

sandro: would be nice to close open issues

eprodrom: where are we in the process?

aaronpk: we are waiting for implementation reports
... I can build more tools for testing a webmention receiver
... I have a couple of issues on about how to create tests for this feature in the spec
... rest of issues on wmr are my to do list

sandro: perhaps we can help with brainstorming those too
... procedurally, in two more weeks we are at the end of our CR period
... if we've closed all issues, and exit criteria have been met, then we do another transition meeting
... or can be sometimes done by email
... then at that point we go to Proposed Recommendation, it gets republished

aaronpk: change CR to PR and hit publish again?

sandro: yes, and there's the drafting the email to the AC

tantek: how long ac has to vote

sandro: four weeks
... assuming that has no formal objection (occasionally there is), then there's one more transition meeting
... which is often waived if everything goes smoothly, and then it gets published as a Recommendation
... there is also Horizontal Review

eprodrom: in terms of implementations, is there value for us to be seeking implementations from member organizations?
... is it worth our time to look down the list of member organizations ?
... it may be more compelling case if we have high profile implementers
... other companies?
... Medium?

sandro: What about WordPress extension?

paul: my company is interested in Micropub and maybe Webmention

eprodrom: there are also comment SaaS services, like echo, intense?, disqus
... may be worth reaching out to

paul: if we implement the standard in our company, what should I do?

aaronpk: one way is to submit the implementation report

<rhiaro> paul ^

aaronpk: if you are a member of a group you can join a teleconference and demonstrate

sandro: there is no need to demo, but you can if you want

aaronpk: official way is to submit the implementation report

eprodrom: other tasks?

aaronpk: open issues

aaronpk: and an email

sandro: I can close the one I opened for folks to voice an alternative "Webmention should use JSON-LD" #47


aaronpk: one with the most comments
... main issue is regarding verifying behind paywalls
... if you have a document like a PDF that is restricted, then create a separate page that the document references, so that there's an actual page with the document's metadata
... there are a lot of benefits to that

eprodrom: I think the resolution you proposed makes sense
... there are two specifics here, one is format
... the second is private documents

aaronpk: webmentions for private documents where the receiver is expected to have a login is fine and not that much of a challenge
... the difference here is where the receiver may not have access to the document

eprodrom: is that notification worthwhile?

aaronpk: what is the goal of that notification in the first place?

sandro: kind of harmless
... or maybe you're revealing private information

aaronpk: this is specifically about you need to pay to get access to this journal

sandro: he provides some text, which I think is unnecessary
... if there is already a trusted relationship, then there's no need

<sandro> (where "sender" in his proposal should be read as "owner of the source")

aaronpk: I think what he was getting at is not actually going to work because webmention is a thin payload
... or I could add something with the suggestion, if you have restricted / paid access content, you should create a landing page for that content that is public that has the links

tantek: issue opener asks for that in his last comment

aaronpk: do you think doing that will satisfy the commenter and benefit the spec
... not sure where it will go?

tantek: maybe an appendix?

aaronpk: maybe in privacy considerations?

<sandro> PROPOSAL: Close webmention #42, saying we'll include text suggesting landing pages for this kind of paywall scenario

tantek: not really that close to that, that means something else usually

<sandro> +1

<tantek> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<cwebber2> +1

RESOLUTION: Close webmention #42, saying we'll include text suggesting landing pages for this kind of paywall scenario

aaronpk: next issue

sandro: maybe just editorial

tantek: how is conformance class editorial?

sandro: no code has to change

aaronpk: not going to change any implementations

sandro: would be easier to read
... hesitate because maybe other classes of proxy

aaronpk: tantek do you remember when we talked about this?

tantek: proxy receivers cannot conform to the quoted implementation requirement in the issue?

aaronpk: why not?

rhiaro: difference between proxy that requires explicit signup by target, and proxy for any webmention

tantek: my statement is true in either case

aaronpk: the "receiver" does not have to accept the target domain's rules

sandro: maybe we can test for proxy receivers?

aaronpk: maybe same origin distinction?

<sandro> +1 "same-origin" + "proxy" receivers

tantek: I think the intent of this requirement was that the receiver at the target's domain knows that the target is a valid resource, like the page / redirect actually exists

sandro: maybe I want to accept webmentions for all pages, 404s, and use that to learn of bad links and create redirects

tantek: if we are making it possible for any target to be a valid resource then what is the point of this conformance requirement

aaronpk: the point of this sentence is that receivers should not accept just all webmentions
... another example is perhaps a paid proxy that receives webmentions on behalf of others, and if someone's account expires, then the proxy would stop accepting webmentions on behalf of the target

sandro: maybe expand on the "valid resource"

aaronpk: I think that's a good way to handle this

<sandro> including for example some servers ( might accept anything, while other endpoints only accept one particular target URL

aaronpk: so I will add a "for example" informative text, clarifying the original meaning of that sentence

<sandro> sandro: This is an editorial change, trying to better express the editor's intent and WG's understanding

tantek: does not change implementations?

aaronpk: no, does not

WG decided it's an editorial change, ok with aaronpk's edits

aaronpk: let's discuss 40
... the issue proves the reason for the link header in the HTTP headers
... the proposed solutions do not match the issue raised

<sandro> aaronpk: Moving link header to MAY would mean it is no longer possible to do discovery on non-HTML

sandro: the suggestions break interoperability

aaronpk: and they don't back up the original statement of the problem
... I could add, if the content type is HTML, then look at the HTML tags

sandro: if if is not HTML then can you look at the body?

aaronpk: the discovery section does not mention any other document types
... which is fine because the LINK header supports everything
... the actual phrasing in the spec could be clarified
... so that if the content type is not HTML you should not be trying to parse it as HTML

eprodrom: from a discovery standpoint, is there a phrasing along the lines of, implementers may ...

sandro: I don't want that may, e.g. if I'm publishing turtle, I don't want to be unsure about discovery

aaronpk: I was trying to use the more positive phrasing
... non-HTML documents MUST use the LINK header for their webmention discovery

eprodrom: next year a new document format comes out and has a linking mechanism and too burdensome to use the LINK header
... that seems unlikely

aaronpk: the goal is interop
... more ways to discover = less interop
... the cost being potentially fewer documents that can use it
... I think we're fine for the current level of things being published
... and adding this clarification text is fine
... totally up for adding the explicit: non-HTML documents must advertise using the HTTP LINK header

<sandro> PROPOSED: Close webmention #40 with editorial revision clarifying that one should only look for HTML tag if content is HTML. Non-HTML resources MUST use the HTTP Link header for discovery. Each additional discovery mechanism imposes a cost on every sender, which we want to avoid.

aaronpk: also helps show that the spec has thought things through

<eprodrom> +1

<sandro> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<cwebber2> +1

tantek: in the rare instance we see what eprodrom is talking about, that can be handled by a spec revision

RESOLUTION: Close webmention #40 with editorial revision clarifying that one should only look for HTML tag if content is HTML. Non-HTML resources MUST use the HTTP Link header for discovery. Each additional discovery mechanism imposes a cost on every sender, which we want to avoid.

sandro: 46?

aaronpk: it may potentially cut down on abuse

eprodrom: an abuse is someone sends webmentions with the source is a 404

aaronpk: or the source is a giant video file

sandro: how is a HEAD request better?

aaronpk: because if I get a content type of video I can ignore it

sandro: spec?

aaronpk: spec says what to do with different media types
... all examples. intentionally left open for other media types
... e.g. if there's a way you can find a link in a PDF, you can send a webmention with a source of a PDF

sandro: the verifier should put an ACCEPT header that says what media types they can verify links in

aaronpk: oooh

sandro: what about size?

aaronpk: spec says something about that for HTML
... it's not required to implement a limit, but if they do, they would only fetch the first megabyte

sandro: how would you do that?
... dropping the connection after a 1MB and then 100MB is still in the pipe? or a range request
... not sure how many support range requests

aaronpk: if you do end up downloading, you can only parse first 1MB

sandro: ok with may, some techniques include, setting right media types on your ACCEPT header, aggressively closing the connection if its a media type you don't know what to do with

tantek: is ACCEPT header in the spec?

aaronpk: that's worth adding to the spec
... is this guidance?
... adding to limit on get requests?

sandro: yes

aaronpk: perhaps the receiver SHOULD provide an ACCEPT header of the media types they accept

sandro: do we have a DDOS vulnerability here? kind of off-topic

eprodrom: it sounds like our suggestion is to use ACCEPT header ...

aaronpk: you can still do a HEAD request if you want
... I could put it in security considerations

eprodrom: yes

tantek: is the ACCEPT header a should?

aaronpk: that would affect every implementation

sandro: I would say SHOULD if we weren't at this point in the process
... all same weight on the accept header is important. don't have any numeric values on them. equally weighted.

aaronpk: this is related to HTTP

tantek: because you call out specific content types it would be good to note how that works here

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Add text to security considerations for Webmention to suggest using HEAD request during verification, AND add text to Verification section to suggest using Accept header

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Add text to security considerations for Webmention to suggest using HEAD request during verification, AND add text to Verification section to suggest using Accept header closing issue #46

<sandro> not "suggest using HEAD" but "clarified that it is allowed to use HEAD"

<sandro> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Add text to security considerations for Webmention to clarify that it allowed to use HEAD request during verification, AND add text to Verification section to suggest using Accept header closing issue #46

<cwebber2> +1

RESOLUTION: Add text to security considerations for Webmention to clarify that it allowed to use HEAD request during verification, AND add text to Verification section to suggest using Accept header closing issue #46

eprodrom: that resolves the issues that we have
... let's take a 5 min break and finish with AS2 before noon

Paul departs meeting

<tantek> chair: tantek


tantek: next steps on as2? Still talking about getting to CR


eprodrom: Link to issues ^
... We discussed CR a bit yesterday. These are all editorial points

<tantek> these all look good

eprodrom: Linking to implementation reports, template, linking to test suite, submission process, change links to repo, adding a note about dropping features
... Things that don't get implemented will be dropped
... Update a couple of references, eg. CURIE
... Making AS1 an informative reference
... Pushing the JSON-LD context

sandro: json-ld context is done

eprodrom: great

scribe: There are these editing tasks I'll get to in the next day or so
... Then we'll push a new WD with them.. don't know if we need to do another resolution?

tantek: didn't we resolve yesterday?

eprodrom: no we did one last week
... For some of these but not all

tantek: my experience is that editorial changes, unless there's an objection, you can push a new WD

eprodrom: I'll finish these this week and push new WD
... Next steps are CR transition meeting
... Which we've discussed doing along with micropub
... And then implementations
... That's going to be an interesting next step
... On my plate is .. it's clear that we have a couple dozen .. somewhere between 10 and 20 implementations of AS1
... It's on the wiki
... I'll find it
... We have a list of implementations of AS1, they're clearly good targets for discussing AS2
... Next steps there will be contacting the companies on that list, letting them know we're moving to CR and we'd like to get their implementation reports
... Which will not only stimulate getting reports, but also implementors
... After that I'm not sure what else we need to do
... Is there additional work that needs to go into AS2?
... Hopefully more feedback after CR

tantek: I'm specifically looking to see what percentage of AS1 implementations (that are current - there are old ones that nobody has touched for years, dont expect those) to adopt AS2
... That should be our goal
... And then there's greenfield

eprodrom: It's a question of finding the conversations with potential implementors
... For me personally if AS2 is not taking up as much of my time, I"d like to help out chris with activitypub
... that might be the best place to be putting my time
... Not that I have that much time.

cwebber2: any help appreciated

eprodrom: And should inform.. also means any activitypub implementations are by definition AS2 implementations

sandro: just looking at the transition request for it, in reverse order: we should link to the implementations so far, which would at least be the empty implementation report repo
... But if we know of some already, even without reports, would be good to enumerate them and show something going on
... For wide review, I don't know about wide review for AS2. There's tons of github issues. Have we sent emails or announcements we can point to?

eprodrom: Good idea to send emails out to old AS lists

tantek: edit the page?

eprodrom: That will be a good way to get wide review

tantek: mediawiki sends an update to everyone who has ever edited that page, so out of the blue they'll get a notification with that diff

aaronpk: vs homepage

tantek: believe homepage is on a github


eprodrom: updating activitystreams website, emails to older mailing lists, maybe updates to open social people..?
... The mailing lists are gone, so would be going through contacs lists

tantek: you can do a pr to the website?

eprodrom: I can, not sure if I have permissions to edit

sandro: this level of outreach could be done after transition request

eprodrom: yeh
... And going after list of 1.0 implementors
... There may be worthwhile producing a document or wikipage, AS2 for people who implemented 1

sandro: does anyone have a clever idea of how to count how many issues are from inside or outside wg? 200 is a lot to go through

rhiaro: not insurmountable to do it by hand if necessary

eprodrom: identifying folks who have participated in issues who are not wg members we should do before CR meeting
... Anything else?

aaronpk: this may not be related, but when we're trying to get people to implement AS2, what is the incentive for people who are not members to implement the draft before it's an actual rec?

sandro: so if they come across a problem there's still time to fix it
... It's unlikely to change, but if it's going to change.. i they're going to hit a fatal problem with it it's better to know that before it's to late to change it

eprodrom: there are companies like, activitystreams is their business
... They may want to have that as.. 'we are the first implementors of AS2'

sandro: also w3c can do some press around recs, testimonials, quotes from early adopters, so chance to get into that press cycle
... Usually if they're w3c members

eprodrom: Sounds like we're moving forward
... We have some evangelism to do, but otherwise we're waiting for feedback after CR to see if there are any normative changes
... I think we're finished with AS2
... And it's 12


<aaronpk> yum

<tantek> aaronpk, eprodrom: perhaps worth mentioning in the transition request re: AS2 & Micropub:

<aaronpk> come back Zakim

<aaronpk> we miss you

<sandro> Lunchtime discussion of ("The Machine Stops", 1909) and's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Babel_fish

<sandro> "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. "

<sandro> bblfish, is your name a reference to HHGTTG? What was your thinking in adopting the name?

<eprodrom> my lunch went late; I'll be back soon

<scribe> scribe: rhiaro

<eprodrom> chair: eprodrom

Post type discovery

eprodrom: Been a while since we've seen a new version of this


tantek: you've never seen a publication ready version, here it is
... The only normative change to this since the last version is that more people have started publishing video posts so video got added to the algorithm
... a one line change
... This is there, as well as the source


tantek: I'd like to know if folks are still okay with publishing what was there before, just took a while to get a draft (thanks ben_thatmustbeme)
... Re-propose to publish a WD

eprodrom: I'll ask a couple of questions first
... Main changes since the last version is that it's been respec'd
... I count 5 issues
... Any value to us in resolving these issues before we produce a WD?

tantek: before the FPWD?
... Good question
... Last time I looked at them they seemed like good ideas to do but not blockers


tantek: But if there's a specific one there that anyone sees as a blocker or might be a blocker, then we should explore it

eprodrom: The question about 'why' would be the first that strikes me


eprodrom: The other ones seem to be.. number 5 sounds interesting but more theoretical
... Not sure if 2 is subsumed by 4
... If we were going to hold of FPWD, 4 would be the one I'd say

tantek: Let's look at that one then
... Last year, when we resolved to publish the first time. sandro raised.
... First, we're doing the general how-does-this-fit-in for all the drafts
... it references AS2 and AS2 vocab in informative explanations for, like examples. That's in the document itself, there's no summary that explains document relationship with AS2
... I'll take an action to add something informative for that

eprodrom: I feel like the abstract clearly says ... *reads abstract* ... so you don't have a post type (check), you want to determine the type of that post (check) -> this is the algorithm to do it
... It feels like the motivation is fairly clear

<tantek> chair: eprodrom

eprodrom: sandro since this came from you, is there more to this?

sandro: I don't remember


cwebber2: one of the major things I was interested in this was, that makes it really useful to the group, especially with having mp and ap moving forward at the same time, is that it provides a bridge between the things we currently have in the group
... you're able to move from something you don't have specific types in a micropub type system, and you can move to a system with types
... That's one of the major questions in this group anyway, how do you justify these two different stacks, it seems like this is helpful
... So maybe putting that somewhere higher
... Right now as2 is mentioned in 2.1 seems like maybe it would be useful in the introduction

tantek: yep
... I like that.. bridge between systems without explicit post types to those with explicit post types
... connects it to two of our documents

sandro/tantek: *discussion of microformats that I didn't minute because I thought it would be brief and informative but is still going on*


tantek: totally okay with saying we have to have text like this before we publish fpwd
... What do you think, evan?

<tantek> "Post type discovery helps provide a bridge between systems without explicit post types (e.g. Micropub, jf2) to systems with explicit post types (e.g. ActivityPub, Activity Streams)."

eprodrom: That's more explicit than what's in there now, and says why PTD is important

tantek: I'll just keep tha tissue open until I've made the edit

eprodrom: that would close that issue I believe... sandro?

sandro: *implied yes*

eprodrom: are there other issues on here that would block fpwd?

tantek: this is useful to get agreement between things that are rec track, so probably should be rec track

eprodrom: is that a decision we need now?

sandro: kind of

cwebber2: we should see if we already decided that

<eprodrom> Rec track or not?


rhiaro: the vague language is not good for rec track, would be clearer how it's useful if it specifically used AS2 terms. eg. RSVP post doesn't exist in AS2

tantek: I agree, needs work

eprodrom: If this was rec track, is this testable?

tantek: definitely

<tantek> needs specific examples for generating AS2 objects

eprodrom: if you were using it in an abstract way, you have an untyped format and a typed format it would be hard to test

tantek: the algorithm is very generic, so you could test it by parsing an untyped format and outputting a string to say this is the type

eprodrom: that is testable

sandro: the code would be much shorter than the spec
... Just an if statement

tantek: we could also have conformance classes like if you are an AS2 generating application you must generate the following objects from the following types
... If you want to open an issue on conformance classes that would help
... If we get more implementors we can point them at this to say if you're consuming untyped data, this is how you get to AS2
... Another possible source for untyped data is RSS
... Various sites that do RSS feeds of their activities that have made stuff up. I can research to see if there's something I can add to post type discovery to make that more explicit


sandro: I found a resolution from January to publish PTD as FPWD
... Still not about rec track

tantek: we hadn't said note track explicitly

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Publish first public working draft of Post Type Discovery including edits agreed upon during this meeting

<sandro> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> +1

sandro: what's the shortname?
... post-type-discovery?

<cwebber2> +1

<tantek> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish first public working draft of Post Type Discovery including edits agreed upon during this meeting

eprodrom: tantek do you need help with that process?

tantek: probably..
... If I get stuck I'll ask for help

      • crisis as we notice trackbot hasn't been logging since this morning **

eprodrom: we need to remember to produce logs from Loqi
... We're now on the tip of 3pm. We have a resolution to go to fpwd. Do we have anything else to talk about PTD this afternoon?

tantek: not unless there's another blocking issue

eprodrom: ten minute break


<cwebber2> pretty much the best animation

<tantek> (break)

<tantek> rhiaro: I'm looking at

<tantek> chair: tantek

<tantek> interruption with figuring out repo moving to w3


<tantek> FYI: is up to date with edits agreed at this meeting

tantek: evan, what are we doing with PuSH?

eprodrom: I'll give a quick overview and where it's at
... PuSH was originally developed by bradfitz and bret from Google
... it was a protocol which they published along with an implementation which is the google hub
... Basically a push-based feed system where you can subscribe to feeds and receive fat pings
... THe first version 0.3 had a number of interesting characteristics, one is that it only was defined for atom feeds. Another was that it had a kind of complicated set of roles; a publisher and subscriber, and then a 'hub' so you can set it up so the publisher and subscriber don't have to scale, but the hub does
... At its height, all google feeds were PuSH were enabled: buzz, blogger, feedburner
... It was pretty well implemented at google
... a third part implementation called superfeedr was also enabled for tumblr,, a number of others
... it kind of hit a peak where it was enabled for a lot of rss and atom feeds
... There were a few issues that made having a new version make sense


eprodrom: When the community and business groups at w3c first started, PuSH was one of the first CGs, the lead was Julien, the ceo of superfeedr


eprodrom: The made a new version of the spec
... the 0.4 version was implemented by superfeedr and google

tantek: and by aaronpk

aaronpk: hub is switchboard

eprodrom: big changes in 0.4, communication between publisher and hub. Redefined how to do publication and subscription for things that aren't atom feeds
... anything that can have a url can be subscribed to

tantek: I'm supporting that on my site, publishing via PuSH 0.4 using superfeedr

eprodrom: awesome
... At the same time, PuSH 0.3 had been incorporated in ostatus which was mostly atom based
... and it was implemented by most of the ostatus implementers
... statusnet, diaspora, friendica
... was relatively easy to implement
... if you used a 3rd party hub it was trivial
... or if you did it yourself still relatively easy
... I think when we started this group the question came up of what role PuSH 0.4 or later would play for us
... And we ran into a couple of problems
... First was that when the open web foundation was first announced, google had announced that they would be putting a number of specs under the open web foundation patent license and so there are blog posts to that effect, but they never actually published the paperwork that says, signed at the bottom, this is under this patent
... By the time that we started to be interested in this, and having it as a w3c spec, the people who worked on it were no longer working on it and there did not seem to be as much of an institutional interest in this kind of standardisation around feeds
... Fast forward to now, the superfeedr hub was just acquired by medium

sandro: how many people worked there?

eprodrom: half a dozen to 10
... Fewer and fewer of their customers were using PuSH, most were transitioning to using their own apis
... tumblr, foursquare had had it, but stopped. Fewer feeds out there that are PuSH enabled
... I haven't checked the google hub in a while, probably should
... *checks*
... It's live on the web


eprodrom: Still possible to use
... Protocol is being used somewhat
... I think we have some question about what role it will play for us
... There are implementations. We have done a CG incubation for it, so there is an affinity with w3c
... So it does make sense. Those are kind of on the positive side.
... On the negative side we have the IP confusion, which is hard to follow and get to a solution
... And there's a quesiton of does it fit into the stack
... The stacks that we're using
... I think when we talk about AP it does not use PuSH for subscription distribution. It has its own.
... For the webmention/micropub world it plays a bigger role, but not sure how big

tantek: the number of implementations more than doubled because of indieweb community adoption
... There are multiple hubs
... Now we have some diversity of hubs and implementation experience and it seems like everyone's... people are using different hubs and publishing to different hubs, and everything seems to work. I don't think we've run into interop problems where your site can only go to one hub because of how it's implemented, or where a reader support consuming PuSH 0.4 and support consuming atom or h-feed real time via PuSH 0.4, seems to work with all of the hubs that

have been developed

sandro: they're all using h-feed?

tantek: some use atom
... There's basically been really good implementation incubation and maybe we're all sidestepping the problems in the spec?

aaronpk: the reason they all are working together is that the holes that were left in the spec we have all filled in the same way because of the tutorial on the indiewebcamp wiki
... In a couple of places where the spec doesn't say what to do, I just said 'do this'

sandro: I read 0.4 on Sunday and I was like... this is so full of holes

aaronpk: but it's also .. theyr'e not that big, you can fill them

sandro: but if you don't fill them you don't have interop

aaronpk: one side, but not all the way through
... Specifically the notifying the hub of new content is not in the spec

sandro: intentionally left out. Also what the notifications from the hub are is left out. Gaping hole.

aaronpk: but if you're in an ecosystem where everyone is publishing and expecting the same type of content it works

sandro: the press around it is all about fat pings, but indiewebcamp doesn't use it for fat pings. There's no format defined for what a fat ping would look like

tantek: we have specifically chosen to use the thin pings subset of o.4

sandro: 0.4 doesn't talk about that. There's nothing in the spec about what you send.

tantek: we just send the url of the thing that's been updated?

sandro: what media type? form-encoded?

aaronpk: it says form encoded


aaronpk: This is my guide that I wrote
... And if you go look at the section how to subscribe, it walks you through every part of the request, including receiving notifications, including separate sections for standard and fat pings
... For standard it says will not contain a body
... If you receive an empty notification, treat this as an update to the url

eprodrom: talk at a more political or editorial or work level

sandro: the takeaway from this description is that PuSH 0.4 by itself is not useful to us, but refined the way aaron has is useful for some subset

eprodrom: well it is being used, so in that case
... We have two or three options... we take the PuSH 0.4 and take it to some sort of rec level right now and kind of steward it through that process
... The other is that we take the PuSH 0.4, make an 0.5 that clarifies some of the things that we're doing, but maybe talks about what's specifically being used in the indieweb community
... Third is that we don't do anything with it and accept that it's a community standard but that we don't necessarily have anything to add to it

sandro: One more: to change the name... like you said for 0.5 but say 'inspired by'

eprodrom: right, we could do something similar. When you do discovery you could do it for some other name, like not 'hub' it's 'publisher' or something

cwebber2: which ones of those are possible within IP if we don't get google to give it up.. how risky is that?

eprodrom: google is a member of w3c, if we decided to publish a new version of this spec, part of that process would be a call for exclusions, which is they say they have ip considerations that would block publication of this spec
... It does not seem like we could get to a point of being at PR and causing problems with murky ip around this spec
... The problem would get solved
... And the people who are being paid a lot of money to figure out google's IP will do it instead of you or me

tantek: I would say that if we took on PuSH as a work item in this group whether called that or called something else, then if we successfully produced a rec, it would put it in a stronger .. or in a more implementable with less ip concern situation than we have today
... in that there would be at least some degree of w3c participating member commitments implied or explicit through that process
... The larger/first issue to resolve before the ip issue is that there was the CG, Julian still felt very strongly about editing and updating the spec, I think that were we to decide to go forward with it specifying the details we have figured out that allow interop would be a good thing, and I would not be comfortable having that gated on someone outside of the group
... We have approached Julian in the past explicitly to participate. I think he hasn't had the time, I don't think it was a negative thing

eprodrom: for him and his business, the state of PuSH 0.4 fine, it works for what he needs

sandro: both what you said and the name, the right thing to do about the name is to ask the people who feel they have ownership of the old name, to see if they want us to call it PuSH 0.5 or name it a new thing
... leave that up to them

tantek: I would word it more strongly - hey we like the work you've done, we've continue trying to specify details, we would like to take that work and publish it with the same name with a new version number

sandro: we don't want to hostilly claim next version numbers

tantek: I believe brad doesn't care... bret is happy to see anyone build on it... I think netiher one of them want to deal with talking to google's lawyers
... Julian feels the strongest, he produced 0.4. If there's anyone we need good vibes from, make sure he knows and agrees with it happening, it would be Julian

eprodrom: Another objection... limited time, limited resources. I'm not going to edit this. I don't know who is. But we'd need to have someone step up and do it. We only have 7 months

tantek: or we publish as a note

sandro: still work there

tantek: less work

aaronpk: what's the value in that?

tantek: shows a consensus

sandro: coherence

cwebber2: plugging holes in an official way..

tantek: plugging the holes in a w3c note is better than plugging them in the iwc wiki

cwebber2: do you know anyone interested in taking this on?

aaronpk: Well, I am the most familiar with the spec..

sandro: how about AFTER webmention and micropub go to CR

cwebber2: finish your vegetables...

aaronpk: if it's a note, there's no requirement for a test suite, which is a lot less work

tantek: theoretically possible to start a note after tpac and get it done

eprodrom: the main reason we had problems with ostatus is that the subscriber is unauthenticated so you can only publish things that are public
... it does not make a good channel for publishing to small groups of people, friends, etc

tantek: limited utility

sandro: the subscriber is authenticated in that you confirm the subscription

aaronpk: the subscription is confirmed but there's no..

sandro: no bearer token
... we could add that?

aaronpk: not sure if that works all the way through
... I haven't thought it through yet. Might work, not sure.
... Reason because.. it might depend who is trusting the hub

sandro: the hub has to be the one enforcing the access control
... Really doesn't work well to have a third party hub with access control

eprodrom: One technique is to have different feeds by group. Secret feeds or have a token in them that's hard to guess
... THe feed of stuff that evan publishes that's available to sandro might be under a long complicated string
... Shifts that effort onto the subscriber, it's hard to manage
... It's especially hard to deal with combinations of things
... That makes it kind of a tricky.. I wouldn't recommend it for anything that's not public

tantek: sounds like what you're saying is if you struck down that path of a PuSH based system you're gonna end up stuck with public-only functionality
... Which is another reason to make it a note not rec-track
... But helps at least capture the state of the art use of PuSH, for anyone who wants to know, here are implementations, if this is good enough for your use cases

cwebber2: would make sense to specifically call out that it won't work if you need private communication

sandro: there are other ways to do it

aaronpk: or you can do thin pings and authenticate on GET

cwebber2: people get pings for things they can't access?

aaronpk: no you don't ping them if they can't access it

eprodrom: if you have urls as identities you can say this subscriber endpoint is this person..
... You can't have third party subscriber endpoints

tantek: there's a lot of brainstorming about what's possible there, we don't know if it works yet

sandro: we can say 0.5 doesn't include that functionality, but wouldn't characterise it as a dead end

tantek: want to highlight the implementation experience. Ostatus went down that route then backed off
... If there was an easy way to move it forward then maybe they would have

sandro: and they had different constraints
... On the resource thing, is maybe a step here to put the word out that if if someone is willing to take on the editorship we would be interested, or do we want to wait until Aaron has time?

eprodrom: not that I"m not perfectly happy to waste aaron's time, when we do a new spec it does affect the rest of us
... There is a collective amount of time we take in meetings
... So next steps?

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Request that Julien Genestoux transition PubSubHubbub from Community Group to editor's draft within Social Web WG

<tantek> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<sandro> +1

<sandro> We'd like to to be Rec Track, but the time is very short

<cwebber2> +1

<rhiaro> +1

RESOLUTION: Request that Julien Genestoux transition PubSubHubbub from Community Group to editor's draft within Social WG

5 minute break




tantek: I'm definitely going to be at tpac the entire week

sandro: I can go if we're going to meet although I might go just for the plenary day

tantek: it would be really helpful the mroe people we get to that
... the Sapporo one was distinctly different
... We'll be able to gauge how people care about this
... By then we'll have several CRs which will be different
... Which building blocks you use depend on your use cases

sandro: sure
... Wednesday aside, the WG meeting

tantek: my point is if you're going to be there Wednesday you will be there Thursdsay and Friday

sandro: if the rest of you are going, I will go

tantek: what's the threshold?

sandro: This is my threshold *points at room*
... This is the minimum
... We couldn't have done this meeting without the people here
... [cwebber2, aaronpk, evan, tantek, rhiaro]

aaronpk: remote is possible, but significant timezone shift

tantek: 22 and 23 is reserved space for us
... of september
... So question is are you available, and would you be able to be there in person

aaronpk: I don't know how I'll get there in person
... More likely to be able to be available if I don't have to travel
... Travel would mean 5 days at least
... Definitely yes to remote. Harder for me to go in person.

eprodrom: timewise I could go
... Can't commit right now. Need to take a look.
... Definitely commit to remote

rhiaro: I'll go if everyone else is going

sandro: get a cancellable hotel now, it's peak tourist season

eprodrom: on the other hand, Lisbon is awesome

cwebber2: if there is another place we can do it, I would prefer it. I'm commited to wrapping up my work and if that means I have to take a huge chunk out of my finances I will do it, but I would kind of prefer something less expensive

tantek: if the other meeting we had resolved on last time was November in Boston

rhiaro: I thought it was December in SF

sandro: I don't remember

eprodrom: So, timeframe. Everything currently on the table should be at CR or ready to go to CR. What would we do at a face to face? September

tantek: if we are going to do a revised CR that will be our last chance to do so, and resolve all outstanding issues
... If we get dozens of implementaitons, we will get dozens of issues
... If we're planning for success, we should expect that

sandro: at the very least we have to go through a bunch of issues

cwebber2: ...airbnb has affordable lodging.. I might be able to do this if we agreed on it right now
... I think it's really important we have this meeting. This time is really important. This location.. but maybe this is the only reasonable time we'll do it. So I'm for it.

sandro: one of the main reasons for this location is if we get people wednesday, and talking to people during tpac, to try to bring in new blood and share. Some may stop by WG meeting

tsyesika, can you make Lisbon in September?

eprodrom: Can we agree to make this decision in our next telecon?

tantek: another key reason is assuming we are doing some rechartering we would do it then
... Ideally better if rechartering occurs before chater expires

eprodrom: Feels like we have enough of a consensus to go. Everyone can make it work either in person or remotely
... Let's say we're doing it

tantek: Sign up for wednesday, thursday, friday