Social Web Working Group Teleconference
13 Jun 2017
See also: IRC log
- tantek, ajordan, cwebber, aaronpk, rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, evan
- cwebber2, rhiaro
<cwebber2> sorry to be late, got distracted by lunch prep :)
<Loqi> Strugee made 1 edit to Socialwg/2017-06-13 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=103209&oldid=103208
<tantek> scribenick: cwebber2
tantek: first things first, let's look at the minutes to see if they can be approved or not
PROPOSED: Approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-06-06-minutes as log of last week's meeting.
RESOLUTION: Approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-06-06-minutes as log of last week's meeting.
tantek: let's talk about ActivityPub first, go in agenda order
<scribe> scribenick: rhiaro
cwebber: the update is short. Progress on test suite. Either next week or the week after I'll have something up publicly for c2s stuff
... the main blocker this week was that I thought I could get thing implemented without having to do the faux server receiver, but it was necessary because even though this was for c2s server only when you add addressing, the server on the other end might end up posting to the address you're giving and that could result in surprises for the server
... so in order to make sure the server doesn't freak out I had to add that
... but it's coming along
... we'll see something up and running in a couple of weeks
tantek: sounds like a good approach
... I feel like aaronpk had to do something similar for micropub
aaronpk: I didn't quite follow all that but there were definitely some tricks I had to deal with for micropub
tantek: are there any new issues on ap?
cwebber: there is, but I haven't reviewed it yet
<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2
<ajordan> cwebber2: which issue was that?
aaronpk: nothing to do with the test-suite, we need more people to submit reports
tantek: how many do we have?
aaronpk: 2 hubs, 1 publisher, 1 subscriber
aaronpk: newest one, wordpress plugin, added last week, which is a publisher
aaronpk: here's a link to the report
tantek: progress at least from last week
<Loqi> [Julien Genestoux] WebSub
aaronpk: yes, and I've staged a new ED here
... the current change is adding http 410 ???
... making sure that satisfies the original commenter
... and other than that I can't remember where we were with publishing a new CR
<rhiaro> oh there's a thread on this, lemme check
tantek: I believe we were waiting to see for Sandro to see if this... I think we decided it was a normative change but it didn't impact any existing implementations was more of a clarification? I think Sandro was looking for guidance from Ralph to see if we could publish without resetting the clock
<rhiaro> We got a reply from Ralph which asked a question, then no follow up
<Loqi> Aaronpk made 1 edit to Socialwg/2017-06-06-minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=103210&oldid=103130
<rhiaro> Not quite
<rhiaro> Sandro replied
<rhiaro> no follow up from ralph
<rhiaro> Ralph: Is this a repeat of [#102] or a similar change in another place? - Sandro: "It's similar in feel & scope to #102, but it's different: https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/106"
<Loqi> [Alkarex] #106 Suggestion: Use HTTP 410 Gone
tantek: so it's at back and forth, ok. if anyone wants to... aaronpk do you have a changes link?
aaronpk: of course
tantek: ok so it became a suggestion based on experience
aaronpk: yes, it technically wasn't allowed beffore
tantek: ok so we're loosening conformance requirements?
aaronpk: yes, and it's a MAY not a SHOULD
tantek: ok I think that's what we concluded last week as well
... let's get that on the record that the group has reviewed it?
aaronpk: yes last resolution was on May 23rd, move to adopt behavior if it didn't restart, but I believe there was no added text for that
PROPOSED: publish updated websub CR with clarifications and changes based on implementations that we believe should not reset the clock
RESOLUTION: publish updated websub CR with clarifications and changes based on implementations that we believe should not reset the clock
tantek: ok that moves us on to the next topic, unless there are new issues that are normative and you want to look at?
aaronpk: there is an issue from Julian from last week... not sure I want to discuss it with the group, it's a huge change and I think there's no quick resolution to this
<Loqi> [julien51] #110 Topics
aaronpk: I'm fine continuing disussion on github and postponing for future revision
tantek: so you're suggesting this is a future version? we've already punted lots of things we don't have implementations for
... from a quick read of this I don't see how this could work with anything that... it could be a reuse of an existing spec, but it could be a brand new feature and i can't tell
aaronpk: yes I think there isn't necessarily a clear path forward on this yet. i get what he's trying to do, and I think this specific suggestion isn't the only way to do it. it's possible to do this using something that would make less of an impact on the spec, and that's what we should explore first
... anyone else have opinions to contribute?
<ben_thatmustbeme> I have begun work on another hub
tantek: ok I won't suggest anything for the group to resolve, hopefully we can move forward next week then
<ben_thatmustbeme> will need to look at that issue closer
aaronpk: ok I think this could be similar to something mastodon does, so I'll leave it for the discussion calls for tomorrow
tantek: ok, if we can get feedback from the CG that would be great
... ok if there's nothing else on websub, then post type discovery is next
post type discovery
<rhiaro> I can IRC-chair
<rhiaro> if everyone is paying attention
<rhiaro> yay evan!
<tantek> chair: evan
tantek: last week one of the things we talked about is one of the things we can do to help Mastodon and other emerging social sites adoptions of our specs is one of the examples people have discussed is webmention, and a key to that which would be useful for at least Mastodon is when you receive a webmention and detemine it's valid, how would you tell what kind of post it is?
<ben_thatmustbeme> they call it "Boosting" i believe
tantek: so I took that as input for PTD, and I have an update for everyone
tantek: it's ready to be turned into a WD, that's all the WD-meta stuff to be changed. that's the respec live versions of the document source
<Loqi> [tantek] #24 add a subset algorithm for Response Type Discovery
tantek: the issue I added that it's solving is ^^^
tantek: I added the changelog ^^^
... my proposal is to publish this update to PTD with this use case of when you're trying to determine what kind of valid response it is, what's the easy steps you can take to do the valid PTD parts. what's the valid PTD aspects that are trying to advance current implementations?
eprodrom: is this a working draft?
tantek: yes it's showing an updated, simpler algorithm that I believe reflects existing implementations rather than the current algorithm, so gives a lower barrier to entry. let me link to the exact new section
eprodrom: I def get the context, trying to understand where we are in the editorial cycle
tantek: it's another WD
eprodrom: with this addition, it's already up as another WD
tantek: up with group's review
eprodrom: we can do a few things, a proposal to publish a new WD, I don't think the group has had a lot of chance to review, but I don't think it's as high stakes since it's a WD
tantek: I also made a minor addition basedd on that request
... one paragraph and five items, plus a subset of the existing algorithm rather than a bunch of new things. deliberately tried to constrain changes
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: publish new working draft of Post Type Discovery based on new editors draft
tantek: if people want a lot more time to review that's fine too
eprodrom: here's the proposal, personally I think it sounds like a good candidate for a new WD
cwebber2: +0.5 because I haven't been able to pay attention very well while scribing
... but sounds good
<ben_thatmustbeme> its a pretty small difference, so it should only take a moment to review it
<ben_thatmustbeme> or rather, a pretty quick read
RESOLUTION: publish new working draft of post type discovery
eprodrom: will there be time in the CG meeting to discuss this update?
tantek: sure I'm happy to raise it there, or to defer to other CG topics as well, since the CG has a lots on its plate
eprodrom: anything else on PTD?
tantek: I think that's it, there are currently 13 open issues, I think I resolved another one as well, if anyone has any new issues or would like to discuss, otherwise I'll try to keep cranking away and will try to resolve in the best way I can
eprodrom: ok, handing back the gavel
<tantek> chair: tantek
tantek: ok that gets us close to the end of our agenda
<ben_thatmustbeme> JF2 updated WD published
tantek: anything else to discuss?
<ben_thatmustbeme> or rather went out
tantek: oh right we got an update to JF2
<Loqi> [Benjamin Roberts] JF2 Post Serialization Format
tantek: ben_thatmustbeme are you on the telecon?
tantek: are there changes in the updated JF2 you feel would indicate a need to update SWP
<rhiaro> I will try to catch up SWP this weekend. Feel free to open issues. Been busy moving to Sarajevo and starting a new job today \o/
ben_thatmustbeme: not from last time I read it, but may be worth adding some info? I should look, not sure it's worth an update?
<ajordan> rhiaro: \o/ good luck!
tantek: ben_thatmustbeme could you file an issue with the info you just mentioned?
<rhiaro> I'll aim to
tantek: hopefully we can do a new SWP next week?
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
cwebber: *probably something insightful and intelligent but nobody knows because muted*
<Loqi> rhiaro has 144 karma in this channel (260 overall)
<ajordan> rhiaro++ for scribing too
<Loqi> rhiaro has 145 karma in this channel (261 overall)
<Loqi> cwebber2 has 89 karma
cwebber: there are two sections in AP while writing the test suite written with shoulds but seem to belong in security considerations. very difficult to write tests for because they're very suggestive
... the first one is SHOULD on server does not client submitted content
... about making sure you don't just trust that you get this message just because it came along to you and that depends on what mechanism you're using for auth
... I can kind of write a test for that but it's a bit goofy
... The otehr is more significant, a SHOULD on taking care not to overload other servers with delivery submissions
... that one is very hard to write tests for
... asking the server 'are you blasting with a bunch of information', probably never goign to capture that in tests
... wonder if people are okay with moving that to security considerations? Would be inline with what'st here already
... Can file issues for next week
tantek: we should be diligent about having issues for normative changes
... That way it'll hopefully solicit additional input
... and input from CG tomorrow as well
cwebber: sounds good
<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2
tantek: ok we're done with document status afaik
<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to bring up another activitypub thing
aaronpk: I don't remember anythign we should bring back here
tantek: ok any other business for today's meeting?
... going once going twice, sold to the relinquishment of time
... evan will be chair, I will be traveling, hope to chat tomorrow at the CG
<tantek> cwebber++ for minuting!
<Loqi> cwebber has 22 karma
<tantek> rhiaro++ for minuting
<Loqi> rhiaro has 146 karma in this channel (262 overall)
<ajordan> thanks Chris and Amy \o/
tantek++ for chairing
<Loqi> tantek has 61 karma in this channel (351 overall)
eprodrom++ for interstitial chairing
<Loqi> slow down!
rhiaro++ for minuting
trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
- Approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-06-06-minutes as log of last week's meeting.
- publish updated websub CR with clarifications and changes based on implementations that we believe should not reset the clock
- publish new working draft of post type discovery
[End of minutes]