From W3C Wiki

11 Oct 2016

See also: IRC log


aaronpk, csarven, cwebber, rhiaro, bengo, sandro, tantek, ben_thatmustbeme
cwebber2, sandro



sandro: let's skip the administrivia. the one thing I'm seeing... we're delaying the CR transition votes on LDN and AP a week for a variety of reasons mentioned in the agenda. Anything anyone has to say about those?

rhiaro: we're basically waiting for review from a few people who said they would, we got the i18n review, they're going to confirm they're happy with the changes, and we have one security issue with is 43. we think we don't need to do anything but need to run it by the group


sandro: that's the same one basically as the webmention behind the firewall?

rhiaro: yes, and the person said "if this is acceptable then that's fine, you should just mention it in the security considerations section". I don't know if we need to say it twice

sandro: where did you end up on the firwall thing aaronpk ?

aaronpk: yes there's a section

rhiaro: did you have it in security considerations as well?


aaronpk: let me check


<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Webmention

aaronpk: I think it's just in the security considerations section, here's the link

rhiaro: yes I think we can put it in security considerations. But security considerations is non-normative right?

sandro: they normally would be, because they're keeping people informed

rhiaro: is that the right thing to do for this issue?

sandro: iiuc you're not telling anyone to do anything, with exception of localhost?

rhiaro: yes, says you should not send it on localhost

sandro: so I guess security considerations is normative in that case, which I think is ok?
... it doesn't say it's not normative...

rhiaro: I can look at refactoring into the security considerations section, that would be helpful, maybe aaronpk can say something?

sandro: anything else about LDN, rhiaro ?

rhiaro: I think that's it right now... just request that everyone gives it one final read-through next week
... it's not hugely changed, just editorial pretty much



sandro: you wanted authorization to publish a new WD of social web protocols?

rhiaro: yes, that's right, there's some substantial changes esp re: LDN
... second paragraph of that section

<rhiaro> PROPOSAL: Publish new WD of SWP

<sandro> +1

<aaronpk> +1


<csarven> +1

<tantek> +1

<rhiaro> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish new WD of SWP

<bengo> +1

<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro

<sandro> scribe: cwebber2

<sandro> scribe: sandro

<annbass> +1 on SWP item

cwebber2: I got a lot of feedback, working on it
... including i18n
... also had a hard drive crash
... next week should be okay
... so security feedback yet
... is that good news?

sandro: are you making changes?

cwebber2: just editorial, in change log
... some comments are questions about why things are done

sandro: when is a good time to re-read it?

cwebber2: now seems fine, but I guess you could wait for the weekend

sandro: any other comments/questions?

tantek: That sounds good!
... Can you capture the feedback & issues raised elsewhere in github, so we can see how ti's processed and handled, and to give us evidence of wide review for W3C process

tant: not for "hey why did you do it this way"

cwebber2: I talk to people giving feedback about making them public, and I'm using a public wiki page, more than issues for those.

sandro: link?


cwebber2: that's just a little bit of it, so far
... please read it soon! Before Monday at least.



<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2

new draft of LDN

sandro: Amy asked for new WD of LDN?

rhiaro: yes, we'd like to get that out asap for the changes done

<rhiaro> PROPOSAL: Publish new WD of LDN

<sandro> +1


<cwebber2> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<bengo> +!1

<csarven> Fine you get my vote

<bengo> +1

<csarven> +1

<annbass> +1

<rhiaro> Noting that csarven did all the work

RESOLUTION: Publish new WD of LDN

sandro: next on agenda is tracking document status
... gonna throw this open, anyone got something to discuss?
... I think I heard half of a tantek but couldn't quite make it out

tantek: I'm coming through authoring <?????>

sandro: not a good week for telecommunications!
... I'm inclined to say we're done for today unless someone has something they can communicate?

tantek: I can hear you sandro

sandro: try counting to 10

<aaronpk> hahaha

<Loqi> hahaha

tantek: 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10

<aaronpk> 1..2..5..

<annbass> great test

<csarven> I heard 1,2,5, Q, vvv 10

<aaronpk> missed 6 and 9

<aaronpk> lol

<aaronpk> i like this test

<tantek> on IRC now

tantek: missing 6 and 9

<annbass> barely

tantek: I'm going to try... on irc... did any of that come through
... at the face to face we stated that we'd be trying to keep pushing CR specs to PR and I want to keep asking those questions of those CR specs if we have editors for them

sandro: we have aaronpk, not james or evan

tantek: from now till we run out of telcons we should try to check all the items
... so we can do a transition call

<jasnell> I'm on irc, not on the call

<annbass> bong, bing, bon

<sandro> --- missing all this ---

<jasnell> if there's something that needs my attention please just mention me here

<annbass> sorry; I'm gonna drop off ..

sandro: I didn't hear that but got the gist that you want to do the CR to PR part of the agenda

<tantek> jasnell, we need you or Evan on a telcon for handling AS2 CR to PR next steps

<sandro> thanks jasnell -- the question is how AS2 is doing on the test suite completeness and test results

sandro: I just asked in IRC ^^^

<tantek> jasnell, can you schedule your time for a future telcon?

sandro: and for aaronpk, did anything change for the face to face?

<jasnell> I don't know what the current status of the test suite is. I can schedule time for next weeks call

<tantek> jasnell, thank you, appreciated.

<sandro> that'd be great, jasnell,

Webmention CR to PR

aaronpk: webmention, did a couple of updates to the report indicating more clearly the test coverage results... otherwise, not much changed, and on micropub I've been continuing to work on adding tests and collecting implementation reports now. Hoping by next week to have all that wrapped up.

<tantek> jasnell, in short, be prepared to answer / work on the following questions for next week for AS2:

sandro: any other plans?

aaronpk: no (?)

sandro: are these features you implemented

aaronpk: not implemented by me

sandro: would it be harmful to remove them?

<tantek> aaronpk, are these at-risk features?

aaronpk: no, it would be helpful to indicate that we added some on on our own (???) and one about CSRF(?) protection
... the CSRF one says that if only the endpoint accepts auth, and then it's a SHOULD to (???)
... come to think of it, one thing that could be done is figure out who does it

sandro: some people are doing authenticated webmention?

aaronpk: I'm not sure. I know my endpoint did by default, but when that happens the framework just does this automatically

<tantek> is that implementation guidance re: form captured in the document?

sandro: ok, thinking about if someone is actually doing this would help

tantek: that would be good to capture... especially the CSRF implementation, is that something everyone doing a web form to webmentions has to support?

aaronpk: only if your form happens to also have session cookies
... if they get a session cookie after they log in, the browser submits the session cookie along with the form...

tantek: so they should be or not?

aaronpk: if you do support session cookies, then if your endpoint handles that session cookie it should also do csrf protection(???)

tantek: I feel like we've seen otehr examples of sites doing this
... could you research it?

aaronpk: yes ok
... I guess if I implement this, does that count as a second implementation?

sandro: technically yes

<tantek> I'm thinking maybe posts have a form like that (and https and session cookies), and as well

sandro: you still need one other person to implement it


aaronpk: I'll share this spreadsheet again, but every webmention endpoint has at least one other implementer.


sandro: ok how is micropub doing it?

aaronpk: micropub test suite is making progress

<tantek> what about "periodically re-verified"? (back on webmention when you have a moment)


<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Micropub

aaronpk: so there's a giant list of micropub features
... which I'm working on adding to a report
... as well as tests

sandro: sounds good
... at this point you don't know how good the coverage is?

aaronpk: right

tantek: did you talk about the periodic reverification in webmention?

aaronpk: with that one, there's one implementation of it, but I'm not aware anyone else is doing it
... so I guess my plan is same as that
... try to track down everyone doing it, if not, I can implement

tantek: is this MAY or SHOULD in the spec?

sandro: I think that wouldn't stop us?
... certainly nice to have it documented that it's used but

tantek: definitely not strictly required. from the webmention test results, maybe push the MAY to the bottom of the list or something, to clearly indicate those are tests for MAY in the spec
... that's good, but we need to make sure we call it out.
... it's good implementation feedback.
... then I didn't hear sandro, did you ask if there are other normative issues open in webmention?

sandro: didn't ask

tantek: are there any aaronpk?

aaronpk: no new ones, in fact only one still open is waiting for commenter

tantek: that's fine
... do you kinwo if we can use github open/closed issues sandro ?

sandro: as long as you tag them...
... you can summarize counts, etc.

tantek: we already covered the feature coverage?

aaronpk: I believe there's still a few things in the spec not directly tested in the test suite, but are based on input

tantek: ok, those are sugar(?) must requirements?

aaronpk: yes some are

tantek: you might want to call those out in the test results since they're self-reported rather than from test ssuite
... in case anyone wants to drill down on thsose

sandro: tantek want to chair now?

tantek: sure.
... aaronpk, if that's something you can call out, that would be useful to group them as self-reported as opposed to from tests

aaronpk: can do

tantek: if there's any specific question on those we can dig into them as needed
... sandro, it sounds like webmention is close?

sandro: yep

tantek: ok, magbe we get another spec ready, then go forward? shoudl we chunk them?

sandro: yes would like to chunk as much as possible

tantek: I tend to agree, the AC tends to prefer to have as few votes as possible
... especially those who are grouped by related, etc
... that's all I had
... sounds like with tweaks to implementation reports aaronpk produced, we should be able to take to PR... right sandro ?

sandro: yep

tantek: ok good
... are there any normative issues on that aaronpk?


aaronpk: only that this one, about what's the process for extending
... everything else is resolved

<tantek> (aside: at the f2f we scheduled 90 min for this telcon - forgot to remind folks of that earlier)

<tantek> rhiaro was that for webmention or micropub?

tantek: this one, given the challenges we've done with how to do extensibility, we should make sure it's clear
... especially since it's for looking at how to do things external from the working group, which is exactly where we're likely to see requests from. if there can be some good instructions... it could be informative, as long as the mechanism works
... sandro what do you think?

sandro: I didn't follow what it was

tantek: if there's an extensibility point in micropub for mp-instructions by the endpoint instead of content of the post, they're specified in micropub as mp-syndicate-to, there's a comment about how people can add more
... sounds like request outside the working group is on how group might create new one
... I wanted to draw point to how we can point to how we did it for as2

sandro: I think the right to thing is to say there's some relatively informal group... should it be the same group as as2, or someone else?
... I don't know if it's the same people or not... I lean towards them being the same but I don't know

aaronpk: there's also the microformats process which is relatively self-governing
... should we put it in a wiki or a new place?

tantek: do you mean the process for vocabulary that h-entry has, for exmaple?

aaronpk: yes we've been working on formalizing that

tantek: yes there's another way to address it to say there's an external place to say people can file issues
... not sure that's been done in an external w3c group before...

sandro: I don't think that's been done, could be a bit of an uphill battle, but might be worth getting working
... might have been done in some other context

tantek: I think if you can point to a process on how to do things for the mp-* extensions, could be good to say here's a lightweight process on how to formalize/make official
... ok that was the one issue

aaronpk: only other question I had on MP is, I believe there will be less changes that there may need to be a new CR?
... what's the process there

tantek: if that's the case, do you have an ED with a ? to go to CRchanges section


<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Micropub

aaronpk: yes, ^^^^
... a lot is changes to examples
... image alt-text is completely new, requires changes to implementations

<ben_thatmustbeme> I sort of wish W3C had a process of noting "references" in the bottom of specs automatically, thus any future Notes / Specs would be listed automatically. This could inclcude community group published docs which then becomes a location for public extensions that is actually still under w3c control

tantek: could you cluster these changes in the normative and editorial section

aaronpk: sure

<sandro> ben_thatmustbeme, absolutely. They coukld even use WebMention

sandro: aaronpk did you say you have to leave top of the hour?

aaronpk: yes, I will work on those after this next meeting

tantek: do we want a proposal to go to CR pending those changes?
... publish a new cr

sandro: are they normative?

aaronpk: there's at least one

sandro: normative changes technically need a new transition call

tantek: can be done by email?

sandro: maybe, needs director approval

tantek: we need to agree as a group first though right?

sandro: yes but be clear that's the only one we want to do

tantek: yes we need to see how much time we have to be in CR... I think we talked about htis at the f2f and we had changes pending, looks like aaronpk made those changes

aaronpk: that's the only change I'm expecting based on feedback
... that issue was from the i18n group.

tantek: we should put proposal forward, then sandro and I can see about process after

sandro: sure, one reason I'm slightly hesitant is it seems like that vocab issue is something to address too

aaronpk: the extensibility issue?

sandro: yes it's not exactly normative, but...

<rhiaro> Not normative, but important

sandro: the spec says, what do you do if you don't know how to handle them?

aaronpk: just ignore them, says spec

sandro: it's pretyt important for the community... it's not normative for current implementations, but is normative for extensions. ah yes, here's why it's normative. If I make an extension foo, and then I see foo, is it my foo vs someone else's? we don't know unless we all agree we're participating in the same registry of extensions
... so it is normative, to make sure all participants are in same registry. does that make sense?

tantek: right now there's no official mechanism right?

<ben_thatmustbeme> can we leave formalized extensions to future W3C WGs? Isn't that basically what the standard that has always been until recently?

aaronpk: essentially it's namespaces by micropub
... there's no official mechanism

sandro: that's technically an answer but not good for the community

tantek: yeah it's technically ok
... we can say if you want to extend it, say here's some guidance
... I think as long as core spec is conservative, it's ok

cwebber2: I'm not sure... if it's conservative, it seems contrained?
... to just the core spec?

tantek: as2 has a way with activities, because we knew from day 1 there are lots of different servers and etc

<ben_thatmustbeme> Community Group for extensions?

tantek: ??? between clients and servers ??? much more restrictive

<tantek> PROPOSAL: Publish an updated CR of Micropub with the normative change in response to i18n issue raised during first CR, and editorial changes too.

sandro: most of extensibility in micropub is extending microformats not micropub

<sandro> +1

<aaronpk> +1

+0 since I'm not totally clear on what this namespaces mechanism resolved to, but I'm a-ok with new CR

<rhiaro> +0 same as chris

<tantek> cwebber2, rhiaro can you add comments to so we make sure capture and handle your concerns?

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

cwebber2: tantek, sure

<rhiaro> Sandro, can you just confirm

<sandro> coming back? or shall we resolve and adjourn?

rhiaro: I just raised an issue to see if this is non-normative or normative

<tantek> rhiaro raises a good point

sandro: yeah I think I'd take that out of the note

<tantek> I agree with sandro

rhiaro: I got the impression you could ??? it in the spec

sandro: I'm sure people can read it different ways but..

tantek: afaict the change for 62 should be at CR

<rhiaro> yeah that's a normative change in case people were skimming over the green blocks before

tantek: I agree with what rhiaro just said on irc

sandro: in the cs class
... for respec, that's an editorial note

<rhiaro> I think it's just class="note"

sandro: or is it some other note?

tantek: yes that's still informative

<tantek> PROPOSAL: Publish an updated CR of Micropub with the normative change in response to i18n issue raised during first CR, and resolving issue 62, and editorial changes too.

<rhiaro> aaronpk: and check that doesn't crop up anywhere else too I guess

<aaronpk> +1

<sandro> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

cwebber2: +0 same as before

<rhiaro> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish an updated CR of Micropub with the normative change in response to i18n a11y issue raised during first CR, and resolving issue 62, and editorial changes too.

tantek: are there any things here that affect implementations?

<ben_thatmustbeme> do we need a WD first?

<ben_thatmustbeme> as a seperate vote?

<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro

tantek: ben_thatmustbe, no we don't need a new WD

<ben_thatmustbeme> ok

tantek: aaronpk confirmed these normative changes do affect implementations, so we need to ask for a new CR period
... sandro and I will do that
... We have a test suite now, what is the coverage?

aaronk: I am missing tests for media endpoint and querying
... and nothing explicitly testing access tokens


aaronk: test coverage here ^
... a list of features and tests

tantek: when do you think you'll have feature coverage?

aaronpk: definitely by next week

tantek: implementation reports for micropub?

aaronpk: some peolpe have started using the tool, but there's no submit report button yet
... Will have by next week

tantek: we can look at this again next week
... I think that's it for this week
... Any other document status?
... Sandro and i need to figure out how to expidite a new CR

Publishing notes

rhiaro: How is publishing a note different?

sandro: Like publishing a WD

tantek: you just change the status in the document, no transition call

rhiaro: Great!

<sandro> thanks aaronpk

tantek: evan scheduled to chair next week, and james will be there. We can go over CR to PR for micrpub next week too.
... Be good to help getting AS2 to CR
... anything else?

sandro: Next week we'll aslo do CR votes for LDN and AP
... extra long meeting next week too?

tantek: We didn't plan one

<rhiaro> Sounds like we will need it..

<rhiaro> Well I hope so

<rhiaro> but there is CR-PR stuf ffor AS2 and mp

tantek: Set aside time for 90 minutes, but we'll try to keep it to 60
... rhiaro, add to agenda for next week for CR discussions

<rhiaro> WIll do

scribe: See you next week!

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Publish new WD of SWP
  2. Publish new WD of LDN
  3. Publish an updated CR of Micropub with the normative change in response to i18n issue raised during first CR, and resolving issue 62, and editorial changes too.