From W3C Wiki

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

15 Aug 2017

See also: IRC log


ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, tantek, aaronpk, ajordan, sandro, tsyesika, cwebber, eprodrom, cwebber2
ajordan, ben_thatmustbeme


<ajordan> hold on I'll look up how to do it

<ajordan> okay let's do this thing


<ben_thatmustbeme> i can scribe in the mean time


<tantek> scribenick: ajordan

<ben_thatmustbeme> nevermind

<tantek> PROPOSED: approve minutes


<rhiaro> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<wilkie> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> most important part is to review for resolutions that you might not have been there for and want to raise issue with i believe

<aaronpk> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<eprodrom> +1

tantek: I'll declare the minutes resolved; I'll have to read about the yak shaving later
... is that meta yak shaving?

RESOLUTION: approve minutes


tantek: let's start with ActivityPub
... cwebber2: how's it doing?

cwebber2: good news! test suite is up at last and I can demo it live

<eprodrom> \o/


<sandro> woo hoo Chris!

cwebber2: last two weeks I was complaining about yak shaving, I had to fix stuff in my language


cwebber2: I have a terrible plunger in place

<cwebber2> JNbn70qGRGTlYm8ZHPmVzQwtfj5ahAHnz9JVpwsy

cwebber2: you can visit this, put in this username, and give this token

<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2017-08-15

<eprodrom> Wonderful job cwebber2!

<eprodrom> cwebber2

cwebber2: things are working for c2s and s2s

<eprodrom> cwebber2++ imts

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 97 karma

cwebber2: c2s and ??? has to be done but I have the general framework and am moving forward
... even better news, apparently Mastodon has AP mostly implemented
... they are working on testing things out now and that's also good news
... things are moving along, 2/3 good news things but I'll pause for Evan

eprodrom: cwebber2 I want to make sure, Mastodon is just doing the s2s protocol right?

cwebber2: correct

eprodrom: so we can't test what Mastodon is doing

cwebber2: yes, I've tested puck's stuff and have seen things succeeding and failing for logical reasons

eprodrom: fantastic news

cwebber2: anyway I'll work on getting the s2s tests, I'll try to prioritize those over c2s especially because of Mastodon

tantek: one more clarification
... the tests, in the UI there was the c2s test and the s2s test and then a separate federation test?


cwebber2: these are the different spec profiles in the AP spec
... c2s client -> clientside, c2s server -> API, s2s API
... currently working on c2s because that's the easiest to do
... I wanted to make sure I did the one that gave me confidence things were working

tantek: so you have the c2s clientside ones done?

cwebber2: it's the c2s server ones
... there's some server stuff worked in there because clients can do some addressing and they don't know if it works, so that's marked as unknown

tantek: re: other variants, do you have an estimate? next week or two?

cwebber2: trying to go as fast as I can, it's difficult because I'm best man in a wedding
... think we'll have s2s tests up within the next month and client tests should be really fast to do after that

tantek: let's do that third thing

cwebber2: I wanted to publish a new... there've been some non-normative change
... and we've talked about some normative changes



cwebber2: thought it would be good to publish a CR with a lot of non-normative typo fixes before that
... these are all non-normative changes
... some stuff added to the security considerations but those are non-normative
... fixed some typos of "actor" as "author"

tantek: that sounds like a good idea, it's been four months so that's another reason

<ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2, note that some of those changes are duplicates

tantek: these changes are all non-normative and won't affect implementations?

cwebber2: yes, security considerations might affect implementations but they're non-normative

<ben_thatmustbeme> remove last two entries in that change log (duplicates) :P

<eprodrom> someone using an IBM Model M keyboard?

<eprodrom> AHA

<tantek> PROPOSED: Publish an updated AP CR with only editorial/non-normative changes

<tantek> also: s/E.1 Changes from 13 April 2017 to present/E.1 Changes from 9 May 2017 to present

<cwebber2> +1


<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<tsyesika> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<ajordan> I'm not seeing the Apr. 13 change showing up on GitHub Pages?

<rhiaro> yeah I'll take care of it

<aaronpk> +1

<cwebber2> ajordan, ???

tantek: I think because it's a CR we still need staff to turn the cranks for us
... I think we noted that in the agenda, presumably rhiaro... yeah August 22nd publications resume
... because it's a CR we have to send an email for approval to update

<rhiaro> that should be okay

tantek: rhiaro do you think you could do that?

RESOLUTION: Publish an updated AP CR with only editorial/non-normative changes

cwebber2: so do I basically email rhiaro?

<rhiaro> cwebber2: just remind me if I forget

tantek: I believe rhiaro said she was just going to take care of it
... so we'll expect that published Tuesday morning of next week
... we don't have a meeting but at least something happens for us!
... any issues you wanted to discuss for normative changes?

cwebber2: no, I want to make changes that we discussed last meeting and then discuss those
... I've been pretty busy with the test suite

tantek: have new issues come up?

cwebber2: no, not really

tantek: I notice informally you've been steering people towards extensions, that's good for the CG
... that takes us to WebSub


tantek: okay, aaronpk, how are we doing with websub?
... I believe last time we met we discussed waiting until about now to collect impl. reports for trying to transition

aaronpk: Google submitted an implementation report
... so now has a report in here
... it's their official hub and it passes all the tests


aaronpk: they used the test suite to confirm everything
... here's their report
... this morning tantek snuck in a report for Falcon, as a publisher
... so we're doing pretty good on number of reports now

tantek: great, I have this vague memory of Gargron doing a live impl. report in IRC for Mastodon
... does someone have a permalink for that?

aaronpk: good question, I don't remember the date but I do remember him braindumping a report into IRC
... just doing a checklist on IRC instead of GitHub
... it's in the logs somewhere
... once I find that I'll convert it into a proper report on GitHub

tantek: was that selfreported or did he use the test suite?

aaronpk: I believe selfreported cause he was doing it pretty quickly
... he thought it would be a quick thing, just fill out the report, but it wasn't

tantek: we need to decide as a group if we're ready to ask for PR transition
... sandro, any updates on when it'd be good to start that ball rolling?
... now? can we do it in two weeks? September?

sandro: I think we're a while from the deadline but I don't see a reason to wait

tantek: I thought we were waiting for the Google report and the Mastodon report so assuming aaronpk can dig up that IRC report I think that satisfies the previous conditions we had set
... for past CR to PR transitions we've started a wiki page for the specs we had to do that for with a bunch of different items to make sure we'd done
... aaronpk you should start that, if you haven't already
... that's transition request I belive, it's got a bunch of fields you have to fill out/qs to answer
... let's open the floor to discussing if the group thinks we're ready to take WebSub to PR
... anyone have any objections?
... actually before I ask that, aaronpk are there any outstanding normative issues we need to resolve?
... that really should be zero

aaronpk: there's a couple things open for discussion
... there's a note from tantek from this morning about clarifying the publisher relationship
... more explicitly documenting that there isn't anything specified
... not normative obviously



<Loqi> [julien51] #110 Topics

tantek: so looking at this list... there's something about topics, is that a feature request?

aaronpk: yeah

tantek: presumably that's for a future version? or are we trying to figure out how the spec could implement it as-is

aaronpk: I think it's a new enough thing it'd be better as a future version
... especially if our goal is to keep things compliant with PuSH

tantek: any other opinions, has anyone else had a chance to look at this issue?
... we'll I'll ask for a group resolution based on that

<tantek> PROPOSED: Accept websub issue 110 as a future feature request, not for current version of WebSub.

<aaronpk> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1


<eprodrom> +1

<tsyesika> +1

<rhiaro> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept websub issue 110 as a future feature request, not for current version of WebSub.

<cwebber2> +0.5 (sounds good but i haven't thought about it much)

tantek: aaronpk if you could update that issue commenting the resolution that'd be great
... I saw the other issue from Manton
... looks like a doc issue rather than a change-the-spec issue

aaronpk: it was a change-the-spec issue but at the end he said there wasn't a conflict like he thought


<Loqi> [Alkarex] #106 Suggestion: Use HTTP 410 Gone

tantek: that then takes us to 410 Gone? where did we end with that

aaronpk: this resulted in a change that we added a while ago so we're just waiting for the commenter to confirm that then


tantek: okay, so nothing outstanding for us to do then

<Loqi> [dissolve] #118 add implementation report on diasporas behalf

tantek: looks like the last thing we have in normative is the... oh!


<Loqi> [aaronpk] #97 Discussion for Host-Meta feature At Risk

tantek: host-meta feature?
... left it open deliberately to try to see if anyone still cares
... we have to resolve this before going to PR, that's what the CR period is for
... what's the proposed resolution for this one?

aaronpk: right now there are a couple votes in support of dropping it, haven't seen much discussion in support of it except for Julien's last comment about leaving it

tantek: did we get any hints from impl. feedback... did anyone check the "we implement this" box for host-meta?
... that's the evidence we should be using

<ben_thatmustbeme> no publishers

aaronpk: lemme check
... ironically we have the least amount of reports from subscribers, which is where this would come in

tantek: well I think it would be publishers depending on it

aaronpk: true
... these three publishers do not publish at all on host-meta

tantek: so not only do they not depend on it, they don't support it at all

aaronpk: correct, none of the three have advertised the hub via host-meta

sandro: well it's just that they don't use it
... not a surprise they don't implement it if they don't want

aaronpk: the need for this would be if a publisher was *only* able to publish via host-meta
... that's the current argument for keeping it in the spec
... currently in the three reports none of them even advertise host-meta, much less depend on it

sandro: well they wouldn't advertise it if they need it?

aaronpk: well you advertise which one you use

sandro: well you can't bootstrap out of nothing
... can't rely on host-meta if no one supports it

aaronpk: as a publisher you can advertise your publisher, _always_, with any of them

sandro: only reason for host-meta is for publishers who can *only* do host-meta

tantek: I thought for some reason diaspora did but the impl. report that ben_thatmustbeme just submitted doesn't have it?

<tantek> FYI Diaspora report:

aaronpk: Mastodon uses webfinger for other things but not for hub discovery

tantek: okay so people use host-meta for other things but not for websub
... okay, at this point there seems to be overwhelming evidence there's not even an indication of implementors

sandro: I think there's evidence people would want it but there's no way to do it
... you can't bootstrap this yourself
... I think it would be a good thing but I think we should probably drop it

tantek: I have a difference of opinion on experiments sandro but generally I agree with you
... e.g. supporting random feed formats no one consumes yet has been known to happen

<ben_thatmustbeme> doesn't pubsubhubbub support it, and so any existing subscribers from push 0.4 would have supported host-meta

<tantek> PROPOSED: close issue 97 with dropping at-risk host-meta feature from WebSub

<Loqi> [aaronpk] #97 Discussion for Host-Meta feature At Risk

<cwebber2> +0

<wilkie> +0

<eprodrom> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1


<rhiaro> +0 no opinion

<sandro> +1 sadly not seeing alternative

<aaronpk> +1

RESOLUTION: close issue 97 with dropping at-risk host-meta feature from WebSub

<Loqi> [aaronpk] #97 Discussion for Host-Meta feature At Risk

tantek: aaronpk go ahead and note the summary on the issue and make the edits to the spec

aaronpk: ok

tantek: ok, that takes us to... I think that's it for the normative issues on WebSub?
... anyone know of any other normative issues?
... before we discuss PR transition?
... are there any normative changes outside of issues you wanted to bring up?

aaronpk: I don't think so, lemme check the draft though

tantek: cause I would expect the Director to do a diff

aaronpk: yeah we've talked about all the changes we've done so far
... they've been captured as issues

tantek: okay, good
... so the only new issue is the one I brought up
... I can ask Evan to chair for this one since I brought it up but it's informative

<tantek> chair: Evan

tantek: but we can talk about it in case it has normative impact


<Loqi> [tantek] #117 informative NOTE pub->hub protocol unspecified, and examples

eprodrom: okay, yeah
... so, could you explain what the issue is tantek?

tantek: if you look at seciton 6 it has one very short paragraph on what publishers should do
... I requested an informative note making it clear that the pub->hub protocol is left unspecified, and explicitly say what some public hubs have been doing
... which is to send a POST request with some well-known key names

eprodrom: I think this is because we have previously-existing PuSH versions where this was their mechanism for pubisher notification right?

aaronpk: what's happened with the spec is that it never specified how publishers verify hubs because some publishers integrate into hubs
... like when it's built into your blog, so you don't need an external API
... Superfeedr and Google happen to implement the same API because they're both external hubs
... those are the two links tantek dropped into the issue, for service docs
... it's sort of become a de facto standard because public hubs do it that way
... best thing we can do is say "this is what the situation is"
... but we can't make it required without breaking things

eprodrom: can we mention a mechanism for doing things specific ways and what the parameters are
... even if we say this is unspecified but this is how you do it... is that a spec
... it seems simple and pretty clear is the question there

cwebber2: I just noticed in some specs I've been reviewing they've been doing it's RECOMMENDED... instead of SHOULD or whatever you can do RECOMMENDED
... that seems like a good way to shove people in the right direction

sandro: RECOMMENDED is defined as a synonym of SHOULD in RFC2119

cwebber2: nvm then

aaronpk: I'd like it to be a normative part of the spec if that situation applies to you, not sure if we can do that

eprodrom: I'd like if it was normative, it seems pretty straightforward
... you'd need some kind of definition as to what that means
... my question is, we're in CR right now, we'd be adding an additional "module" to WebSub

<ben_thatmustbeme> personally i would prefer to see it as a seperate note of ways it has been done

eprodrom: but it feels like the right time to do it

tantek: the reason I raised this issue was, I was filing my impl. report and going through all the steps

<ben_thatmustbeme> uses hub.url instead of hub.topic for example

tantek: and I realized as I got to the last step that what I was doing wasn't in the spec
... realized I was following docs from public hubs
... made sense to at least mention that that documentation exists

<aaronpk> ben_thatmustbeme, both superfeedr and google use hub.url

tantek: but trying to be conservative and not add normative text, instead just ack the current situation
... I would be _for_ normative text in a *future* WebSub version

<ben_thatmustbeme> i also was working on a hub implementation that uses webmention instead of that methods

tantek: if it gets more uptake and there are no objections... all the usual spec iteration stuff that involve the broader community, I could see it going into a 1.1
... in particular I'd like Julien's opinion on any normative change
... I felt it was still valuable to include an informative short note, stating reality

eprodrom: could I propose a second path? we could have a separate document
... a Note
... that defines what the state of the world on pub to hub protocol and refer to that document from here
... the advantage being that could evolve separately

aaronpk: I support the idea of a Note for specifying that relationship, I think tantek's right that the spec should say *something*
... "it's unspecified, for example here's one way you could do it"
... as a reader you're not missing something, it really is not here

eprodrom: do we think we'll be further standardizing this interface?

aaronpk: yeah as a separate future document or as a Note or something

tantek: or as a 1.1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1 to both a note inline as "this is unspecified, but here is one way that has been used"

eprodrom: for me I'm wondering at one point do we begin the little branch/bud that will become pubhub

<ben_thatmustbeme> and +1 to a later Note doc

eprodrom: do we note it here and link to it or just leave it as "two hubs do it this way" and that's it

tantek: we could do both
... how we capture this kind of protocol, whether it's in a 1.1 or a new pubhub spec
... I'm ok with either option in whatever form
... but I think that doesn't preclude us at least mentioning the state of where things are
... that section in the spec is so short
... it makes reading the spec seem like there's something missing if we don't say anything here

eprodrom: that makes sense
... I'm just feeling like this is great CG work
... I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle that off

<Loqi> rofl

aaronpk: I think I would prefer to add this text as-is instead of preemptively linking to something that doesn't exist yet
... let's plan on writing that but in the meantime this seems useful

eprodrom: sounds good, aaronpk I assume you'll do some wordsmithing on here

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: close by accepting and including informative note as written

<Loqi> [tantek] #117 informative NOTE pub->hub protocol unspecified, and examples

<tantek> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<sandro> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1


<rhiaro> +1

<wilkie> +1

RESOLUTION: close by accepting and including informative note as written

<Loqi> [tantek] #117 informative NOTE pub->hub protocol unspecified, and examples

eprodrom: I'd like to hand the floor back to tantek unless there's something else you need?

tantek: that was it!
... just wanted to get all that on the record
... I believe that's enough to close all the normative issues on websub
... most of which we've just been waiting on
... and to make sure that informative issues don't have any normative implications
... already talked about impl. reports, got enough for publishers and subscribers
... how many?

aaronpk: 5 hubs, 3 subscribers, 2 publishers
... not counting Mastodon's since I haven't officially filed that one yet

tantek: and the diaspora one that ben_thatmustbeme filed during the telecon

aaronpk: yeah the diaspora one too, that's a publisher. that makes 3 publishers now

tantek: I thought that was true, great
... let's propose the transition

aaronpk: sorry, got that mixed up - 5 hubs, 3 publishers, and now 3 subscribers with... I can't count

<ben_thatmustbeme> 5 hubs, 3 publishers, 2 subscribers

tantek: did Mastodon submit as a publisher? as a hub?


aaronpk: I don't remember
... I just merged ben_thatmustbeme's

<aaronpk> 5 hubs 4 publishers 2 subscribers

<tantek> PROPOSED: with edits agreed during telcon, transition WebSub from CR to PR, with aaronpk writing up transition request on the wiki

<aaronpk> +1


<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<wilkie> +1

<sandro> +1

<rhiaro> +1

RESOLUTION: with edits agreed during telcon, transition WebSub from CR to PR, with aaronpk writing up transition request on the wiki

tantek: congrats everyone, this is a pretty big transition

<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme

Post Type Discovery

tantek: i don't have anything new on that, i did publish the new draft as agreed


<ben_thatmustbeme> no real updates, just editorial updates thanks to ajordan

ajordan: i have a bunch of other changes queued up on paper, and I don't think i have any normative changes

tantek: i'll leave it to the editor to request an updated WD when he feels its ready
... maybe in 2 weeks

ben_thatmustbeme: that sounds good

ajordan: i'll bring in those changes soon

Social Web Protocols

tantek: amy, anything you want to give the group a heads up about?

rhiaro: i don't think i have made any changes since the last update to document status

tantek: sounds like that is gated on when we get the websub PR

Any other documents

tantek: anything?

Incubator CG

cwebber2: we have a call tomorrow, i also had a call with another group that is using AS in a really large way, and they are joining the CG
... as i said, we have a call tomorrow, so it would be great for people to show up

tantek: any other topics?
... thanks everyone for showing up, some major progress
... with the transition of websub to PR, we are just waiting on the progress on AP and getting that to PR
... reminder, we have no call next week


our next call is 8/29, i believe i am chairing that one as well

hope to see some of you tomorrow at the CG, otherwise see you in 2 weeks

<ajordan> ben_thatmustbeme++

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 82 karma in this channel (251 overall)

<tantek> 17 min early from our extended telcon period!

<tantek> ajordan++ for scribing

<Loqi> ajordan has 16 karma in this channel (17 overall)

<ajordan> aaronpk: lemme look up the phone number thing for you

<tantek> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approve minutes
  2. Publish an updated AP CR with only editorial/non-normative changes
  3. Accept websub issue 110 as a future feature request, not for current version of WebSub.
  4. close issue 97 with dropping at-risk host-meta feature from WebSub
  5. close by accepting and including informative note as written
  6. with edits agreed during telcon, transition WebSub from CR to PR, with aaronpk writing up transition request on the wiki