- 1 Social Web Working Group Teleconference
Social Web Working Group Teleconference
30 May 2017
See also: IRC log
- eprodrom, sandro, ajordan, cwebber, ben_thatmustbeme, aaronpk, tantek, cwebber2
- Summary of Action Items
- Summary of Resolutions
<eprodrom> cwebber2: are you calling in?
<cwebber2> eprodrom: yes
<scribe> scribe: sandro
<scribe> scribenick: sandro
eprodrom: This is our new meeting time
Approval of previous minutes
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-23-minutes as minutes for 23 May 2017 meeting
<tantek> good morning
<tantek> +1 from what I recall reading it later that day
RESOLUTION: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-23-minutes as minutes for 23 May 2017 meeting
sandro: Please keep trying to find AC Reps to vote
(access controlled link)
until June 16
I think Evan can read this, but maybe not.
<tantek> can you see this? https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=33280
eprodrom: okay, we'll try to figure out who we know
sandro: to remind them to give feedback
<ajordan> tantek: not authorized for me
tantek: we'd love feedback as part of those conversations as well
eprodrom: test suite?
cwebber2: life took over, family emergency, etc, still not ready
... one issue for discussion
<tantek> eprodrom_ vs eprodrom
<Loqi> [brianolson] #225 Needs provisions for encrypting content for privacy
cwebber2: someone's asking for end-to-end encryption
cwebber2: Can we say it's worth exploring, but not feasible in the spec at this time
eprodrom: If you literally are going to encrypt activities as posted to your outbox, so they're only readable to recipients who know it, the server couldn't do the routing
<Loqi> [cwebber] So there are two ways to encrypt things. You can encrypt things between servers, which is done via SSL/TLS. You could also give each user a public/private keypair on the server, but at that point you're nearly in "as good/bad" of a situation as HTT...
cwebber2: I think I captured that in the issue.
... If you just want an encrypted wrapper, we could maybe support that in extension, but s2s side effects wouldn't work
... server can't, eg, increase likes, add someone to list, etc
... encrypted wrapper would have lots of side effects. Just delivery of an object.
eprodrom: it would be possible to do encrypted-content property
... or to have an encrypted-note type, that has much of the same properties as node, but we expected 'content' value to be opaque. That would cover much of what people expect from end-to-end.
cwebber2: or encrypted-payload field, with json object.
... like email, as far as envelope being visible
... still, not something we're going to do in this WG
<tantek> runyourownserver++ :)
<Loqi> runyourownserver has 1 karma
eprodrom: the usual answer is 'run your own server'
... I agree, closing that
sandro: invite commenter to propose extension in CG
... I will have a better update next week
ajordan: Did we ever cover Direct-Message issue?
<tantek> issue number?
<Loqi> [annando] #196 How to differentiate between posts and private (direct) messages?
ajordan: We talked about this, but I can't remember what we said
<tantek> ajordan, you can bring up any substantive issue in github on our CRs, the agenda items for those specs are inclusive of that "open issues"
cwebber2: evan made the case we covered this with to,bto,cc,bcc
ajordan: Let's remember our state on this for next week
eprodrom: it was two weeks ago
ajordan: let's move on for today
<Loqi> [aaronpk] Here is some proposed text to add this to the spec.
<Loqi> > The successful response from the subscriber's callback URL MUST be an HTTP !RFC7231 success (2xx) code. The hub MUST consider all other subscriber response codes as failures; tha...
<ben_thatmustbeme> grep of minutes list shows #196 mentioned on 4/25, 5/2 and 5/9 cwebber2
aaronpk: Last week we agreed to incorporate this HTTP 410 issue
... Julian wanted MAY instead of SHOULD.
... New WG
<ajordan> tantek: yeah
sandro: contingent on clarification
... although with MAY it's hard to imagine it being a problem
tantek: I agree, the MAY makes it even less likely to raise concerns. It's pointing direction for implementation. Is it possible to test this?
aaronpk: I do plan on test, waiting for text to be in
tantek: if it's widely implemented, than in a 1.1 we could upgrade it to a SHOULD
aaronpk: In that case I'll go ahead with a new CR
tantek: I think this would be normal WG post-REC maintenance
sandro: I'll still check with Ralph, don't want to get this wrong
aaronpk: I checked on github's impl
... turns out they don't implement discovery
... their topic URLs don't return anything when you touch them
... and their subscription request requires Access-Token
... so it's not really PubSubHubbub
... they do send fat pings
... but it's undefined if they match URL, since URLs don't work
... not a lot of good news
... I'm asking someone at github to look into it
... but not optimistic because of their general need for authentication
Post Type Discovery
tantek: Nothing new
... hopefully soon
Any other documents?
<ajordan> Zakim: who is on the call?
eprodrom: We approved pub of social web protocols
<ben_thatmustbeme> I have been working on updates to JF2
<ben_thatmustbeme> but that will be a bit before done
sandro: rhiaro is at conf this week
ajordan, comma not colon
Social Incubator CG
cwebber2: Tomorrow! Show Up!
<ajordan> sandro: :/
eprodrom: Nice. Short meetings are good.
<tantek> +1 to that
sandro: help add to CG agenda and get the word out
<ajordan> cwebber2: might want to announce on the CG page
eprodrom, adjourned, see you tomorrow and next week!
<cwebber2> ajordan, yes probably
<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting
<Loqi> sandro has 39 karma in this channel (46 overall)
<tantek> sandro++ for minuting
<Loqi> sandro has 40 karma in this channel (47 overall)
<Loqi> eprodrom has 46 karma in this channel (47 overall)
<Loqi> slow down!
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]