#social 2017-04-04

2017-04-04 UTC
timbl, tantek, dtluna and eprodrom joined the channel
#
aaronpk
good morning
#
eprodrom
lambadalambda is a good nick
#
eprodrom
two great tastes that taste great together
#
eprodrom
hey aaronpk
#
eprodrom
I'm going to call in now
#
eprodrom
Oh wait
#
eprodrom
There's no agenda page
#
aaronpk
oh dear. the agenda was in email i guess
#
eprodrom
OK
julien joined the channel
#
julien
Hello!
#
aaronpk
good morning julien!
#
julien
good morning Aaron!
#
julien
present+
#
trackbot
is preparing a teleconference.
#
sandro
trackbot, start meeting
RRSAgent joined the channel
#
trackbot
RRSAgent, make logs public
#
RRSAgent
I have made the request, trackbot
Zakim joined the channel
#
trackbot
Zakim, this will be SOCL
#
Zakim
ok, trackbot
#
trackbot
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
#
trackbot
Date: 04 April 2017
#
aaronpk
present+
#
eprodrom
All right
#
eprodrom
present+
#
julien
present+
#
rhiaro
present+
#
Loqi
rhiaro: tantek left you a message 1 week, 3 days ago: what's the right thing to do here? https://www.w3.org/community/decentralizdcomm/ got created despite explicitly inviting the proposer and anyone else to join SWICG to participate in such topics: https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2017/03/23/proposed-group-decentralized-communications-community-group/#comment-62302
#
rhiaro
My connection is a bit flaky
#
rhiaro
Sure I can
#
rhiaro
scribenick: rhiaro
#
julien
Thanks Amy!
#
rhiaro
though if my connectino drops, someone be backup
#
rhiaro
it just went silent, still there?
#
rhiaro
dropped already. Sigh.
#
sandro
evan: Is there a problem with quorum?
#
sandro
sandro: I think we're okay, as long as we open the floor for objections via email afterwords
#
rhiaro
Topic: WebSub
#
rhiaro
eprodrom: Advancing WebSub to CR
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: We've addressed all the issues and closed them
#
rhiaro
... One not yet closed but most of the content was spun out into other issues so I don't think there's anything left there
#
rhiaro
... 84
#
rhiaro
... Pretty sure everything in there got turned into new issues and addressed
#
rhiaro
... But I didn't want to just close it
#
rhiaro
sandro: I read over it this morning and it seems clear to me that we addressed it elsewhere
#
rhiaro
... The content moved elsewhere
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: If that's the case then maybe I can ask the group to agree to close it saying all the content has been spun out?
#
rhiaro
... And then hopefully the originator won't be upset about that
#
rhiaro
sandro: yep
#
eprodrom
PROPOSED: close issue #84 since all relevant points have been addressed in separate issues
#
eprodrom
+1
#
rhiaro
<rhiaro> +1
#
julien
+1
#
sandro
Zakim, who is here?
#
Zakim
Present: aaronpk, eprodrom, julien, rhiaro
#
Zakim
On IRC I see RRSAgent, julien, eprodrom, timbl, dtluna, ben_thatmustbeme, Loqi, wilkie, jet, lambadalambda, rhiaro, aaronpk, bigbluehat, KjetilK, bitbear, dwhly, csarven, mattl,
#
Zakim
... raucao, wseltzer, trackbot, sandro
#
eprodrom
RESOLVED: close issue #84 since all relevant points have been addressed in separate issues
#
sandro
present+
#
rhiaro
My irc dropped on laptop but I'm scrbing offline btw
#
rhiaro
sandro: One of the things in transition is making sure all the normative references point to thinks that are suitably stable. People often forget.
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: I reviewed the list of references and reviewed the list. Some incorrectly marked as normative. We were also referencing the URL spec and referenced HTML for the query string, so I switched that up. Fixed on ED.
#
rhiaro
... What's the stable part of ??
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: We reference it just to say what utf-8 is.
#
rhiaro
sandro: we can change that reference if the director has a problem with it.
tantek joined the channel
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: RFCs are always okay right?
#
rhiaro
sandro: I think so
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: They're stable..
#
rhiaro
sandro: 2616 is obsoleted right?
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: I went through this with webmention..
#
rhiaro
sandro: It's obsoleted by a bunch so you need to figure out which one
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: I can do that
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: 2616 is conneg. I think i'ts not even worth referencing that. I'm going to delete that. It's just saying it's possible, not to follow it.
#
rhiaro
sandro: I think that's okay
#
rhiaro
sandro: Capability URLs? could we swithc that to informative?
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: Callback URL should be capability URL... SHOULD is normative right?
#
rhiaro
sandro: *long sigh*
#
rhiaro
... some controversy there.
#
rhiaro
... Looks like a dead working draft.
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: Hmm. All it's really saying is use a really long token in the URL.
#
rhiaro
eprodrom: that's probably more informative
#
rhiaro
sandro: yeah I think we can say that
#
rhiaro
aaropk: We're saying 'capabilitiy URL as a shorthand' for those things that are unguessable with sufficient randomness, so we didn't have to spec what that meant?
#
rhiaro
sandro: I think just changing that to be
#
rhiaro
... we could rephrase it as "an unguessable URL, see capbability URL.."
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: We can say it's a unique unguessable URL
#
rhiaro
sandro: Let's say that. Then just have the link to capability URLs
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: That way it's informative
#
rhiaro
sandro: the danger is that if the capability URL spec changed to add some weird requirement that didn't make sense for websub they would break websub. So as long as we say what we mean and that just helps explain it we're safe. we don't want to delegate it entirely to something not promised to be stable.
#
rhiaro
... I think that's good for the references
#
rhiaro
sorry
#
rhiaro
call dropped someone else scribe!
#
rhiaro
apparently I can only have the call or irc, not both
#
rhiaro
are we on abstract?
#
tantek
present+
#
tantek
scribenick: tantek
#
tantek
sandro: abstract seems a bit out of date
#
eprodrom
scribenick: eprodrom
#
rhiaro
"WebSub provides a common mechanism for communication between publishers of any kind of Web content, and their subscribers. Subscription requests are relayed through hubs, which validate and verify the request. Hubs then distribute new and updated content to subscribers when it becomes available. WebSub was previously known as PubSubHubbub."
#
tantek
aaronpk: sounds like we are trying to solve a problem that is no longer a problem
#
eprodrom
scribenick: tantek
#
julien
I like it
#
rhiaro
thanks tantek
#
tantek
sandro: rhiaro has written a new abstract
#
julien
I would just adds that it's based on HTTP
#
tantek
aaronpk: that's great, I'll paste that in
#
julien
and maybe mention webhooks
#
tantek
aaronpk: replace the whole thing?
#
tantek
sandro: yes
#
tantek
julien: I would mention HTTP in the abstract also
#
tantek
julien: as maybe webhooks because this is a pattern a lot of people know about
#
tantek
sandro: maybe in the first sentence
#
sandro
sandro: first sentence, "... based on http webhooks"
#
tantek
julien: that would be perfect
#
tantek
aaronpk: I got it
#
tantek
sandro: moving along through the transition request. changes...
#
tantek
sandro: I'm fuzzy at what changes at PR are supposed to be
#
tantek
sandro: it is supposed to be changes since widely reviewed version
#
tantek
sandro: could we have changes since versions of pubsubhubbub?
#
tantek
sandro: if I was coming to this since reviewing PuSH I would want to see changes since that
#
tantek
aaronpk: FPWD was essentially PuSH 0.4
#
tantek
sandro: can we note that in the change long
#
tantek
tantek: sounds like what we did with AS with a Changes since AS1 summary section
#
tantek
aaronpk: maybe a section on changes since PuSH 0.4
#
tantek
aaronpk: and then note that no changes since PuSH 0.4 and FPWD
#
tantek
sandro: as a user I want a short list of normative changes
#
tantek
sandro: if I had old code, I would want to know
#
tantek
aaronpk: there may be changes that require more security
#
tantek
aaronpk: but it will still work
#
tantek
sandro: is it safe to say that we expect all previous conforming implementations to be interoperable with this?
#
tantek
julien: not all versions of PuSH 0.4
#
tantek
s/0.4//
#
tantek
julien: v0.4 probably. v0.3 probably not
#
tantek
sandro: does the spec for 0.4 say what needs to change since 0.3?
#
tantek
julien: the spec doesn't have it. I wrote it on the mailing list at the time
#
tantek
sandro: I just added to the transition request
#
tantek
sandro: reload to see the changes section
#
tantek
aaronpk: should I add something to the document to that effect?
#
tantek
sandro: probably?
#
tantek
sandro: it's hard without knowing how well we met that goal
#
tantek
sandro: until we go through CR
#
tantek
sandro: later on we can tell how true that turned out to be
#
tantek
sandro: ... on how well this goal was met
#
tantek
sandro: ... how completely
#
tantek
tantek: could we offer intent? fixing spec vs fixing impls if we find breaks during CR?
#
tantek
sandro: we don't really know.
#
tantek
sandro: the real technical question here is, is there any change we've made that you're worried about might say make us not interoperable with ...
#
tantek
sandro: for example there's a google hub running, I would hope we remain interop with them?
#
tantek
julien: I'm not sure google hub still runs, or is completely compliant with 0.4
#
tantek
julien: the capability URLs are good example of this
#
tantek
julien: it wouldn't break interop
#
tantek
aaronpk: another example of a change that might break things is the new stricter requirement for matching content-types
#
tantek
aaronpk: that was something probably happening before
#
tantek
sandro: common cases we would expect to work the same
#
tantek
tantek: is it worth marking at risk
#
tantek
aaronpk: I don't think so
#
tantek
julien: I don't think so either
#
tantek
tantek: the point of at risk is not to say we would drop it, but rather that if we did not find 2+ implementations that support it, that we would consider dropping it
#
tantek
julien: we really should keep it
#
tantek
aaronpk: agreed
#
tantek
sandro: I'm inclined to agree
#
tantek
sandro: anything else we would want to mark at risk?
#
tantek
tantek: marking it at risk gives us the option of droping it without going to another CR
#
tantek
tantek: that is, we can make that change and still go directly to PR
#
tantek
apologies for being late! (past alarm again)
#
tantek
sandro: is there anybody that might be attached to the link tags being in the body?
#
tantek
aaronpk: we said for HTML, link tags must be in the head
#
tantek
julien: I don't think anyone would be attached to it
#
tantek
julien: we might have people who are attached to it who are hosting their platforms where they do not have control over http headers like github
#
tantek
julien: it is theoretical, I haven't seen anyone in particular
#
tantek
aaronpk: it seems like HTML only allows link tags in the head element
#
tantek
aaronpk: from what I can tell, link element must be used in the html head element
#
tantek
ben_thatmustbeme: that question is do you want the spec to still work even with non-conforming HTML
#
tantek
sandro: the link element is allowed in the body for certain contexts
#
tantek
mumbles something about RDFa
#
tantek
sandro: something about RDFa and/or, something
#
tantek
aaronpk: this is regarding an issue I brought up
#
tantek
aaronpk: the concern is it would be possible to have someone inject a link tag into the body of the page that would hijack subscriptions
#
tantek
aaronpk: limiting it to the head is a security precaution
#
aaronpk
s/I brought up/I just dug up/
#
tantek
sandro: why don't we mark this at risk in case we get harsh feedback during CR
#
tantek
aaronpk: that seems reasonable
#
tantek
julien: I'm ok with that
#
tantek
sandro: let's do a proposal
#
sandro
PROPOSAL: Mark the change "Only allow <link> tags in the HTML <head> element" as At Risk for CR
#
julien
+1
#
sandro
RESOLVED: Mark the change "Only allow <link> tags in the HTML <head> element" as At Risk for CR
#
sandro
tantek: Mark it inline, AND in SOTD
#
sandro
tantek: see example in other specs
#
tantek
tantek: two ways, one mark it inline with the feature, and two in a summary of At Risk items section as part of the status section
#
eprodrom
+1
#
tantek
sandro: we already have host meta discovery at risk
#
tantek
aaronpk: I'm going to do what CSS does
#
tantek
aaronpk: which is a section inside the SOTD called "At Risk"
#
tantek
sandro: sounds good. almost like tantek was familiar with what CSS does :)
#
tantek
sandro: these others it's hard to see how someone would disagree with them
#
tantek
tantek: it sounds like there are some at-risk items we expect to drop, vs others we don't expect to drop but are just unsure
#
tantek
sandro: where are we with host meta?
#
tantek
aaronpk: if there are no impls let's drop
#
tantek
sandro: it sounds like we'll probably drop host meta
#
tantek
eprodrom: statusnet does host meta
#
tantek
eprodrom: but it will fall back to other techniques too
#
tantek
tantek: if we want to drop it, we should drop it from the CR version
#
tantek
eprodrom: should we have a motion to drop it from the CR version
#
tantek
sandro: I'm a little worried because there are some people that like it
#
tantek
julien: it was previously in the spec
#
tantek
julien: people might have implemented it
#
tantek
sandro: let's not drop it yet
#
tantek
sandro: is it an optional thing?
#
tantek
aaronpk: it's a negotiation between publishers and subscribers
#
tantek
aaronpk: subscribers would have to check
#
tantek
sandro: that means we're not going to...
#
tantek
sandro: we're going to gather implementation experience with the test suite
#
tantek
sandro: it is likely we'll have some folks that implement it because of tests
#
tantek
tantek: is it must?
#
tantek
aaronpk: for subscribers it is a must
#
tantek
aaronpk: otherwise they won't find some publishers
#
tantek
tantek: theoretical?
#
tantek
aaronpk: yes
#
tantek
aaronpk: for publishers, it is the third recommended option, as a should
#
rhiaro
the test suite can indicate what's at risk so people who hate it can be happy to fail that test and see it removed? Or we only care about the results of the publisher tests for this?
#
tantek
aaronpk: for subscribers, first check link header, then http body (XML payload or head of html page), then host meta
#
tantek
aaronpk: it is entirely possible that publishers all advertise via http header or body, in which case clients will never hit 3rd case
#
tantek
sandro: we should keep it for now
#
tantek
tantek: do we know of any implementations that require it?
#
tantek
aaronpk: this would be are there any publishers that only advertise via host meta?
#
tantek
eprodrom: we don't know
#
tantek
julien: we don't know
#
tantek
sandro: I wouldn't use that as a publisher unless we knew most of the clients support that
#
tantek
tantek: it sounds like we should include a note in the spec and/or the test suite accordingly
#
sandro
+1 test system indicating what's At Risk
#
tantek
tantek: and include what rhiaro wrote in IRC
#
tantek
sandro: particular in the at-risk language in description of host meta we should have an issue
#
tantek
sandro: so people can weigh-in
#
tantek
tantek: could we also add a note that the WG knows of no publishers that depend on host-meta, that they offer discovery in other ways
#
tantek
eprodrom: I think we should leave it at risk at move on
#
tantek
eprodrom: what else do we need to do for CR
#
tantek
sandro: have we satisfied our requirements
#
tantek
sandro: what I've written is that no analysis was done
#
rhiaro
We have like the user stories which has a subscription requirement
#
tantek
eprodrom: it is fair to say that part of our charter is to create a Federation protocol, and that PubSubHubbub was one of the inputs to tthat
#
tantek
s/tthat/that
#
ben_thatmustbeme
was our only requirement to "standardize pubsubhubbub and not break current implementations"
#
tantek
aaronpk: we have all the user stories which have subscription requirement
#
tantek
eprodrom: apologies pubsubhubbub was not one of the charter inputs
#
tantek
sandro: I'll figure out what the right thing to say is
#
tantek
sandro: going through the user stories and connecting this seems like quite a bit of work
#
tantek
sandro: I'll add the sentence that this functional area is in the charter
#
tantek
tantek: sandro did you see rhiaro's document?
#
rhiaro
that's on the wiki somewhere too, sorry all my things are lagging
#
tantek
sandro: I'm looking
#
tantek
sandro: oh ok
#
tantek
sandro: I will link to that
#
tantek
sandro: what I was saying is ...
#
tantek
sandro: we have 49 satisifed
#
rhiaro
sandro, I just labelled them
#
rhiaro
It seemed disingenuous to mark Rob's as satisfied, as he just closed it saying he won't implement https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/82
#
tantek
tantek: rhiaro says she just labeled them
#
tantek
sandro: we have 50 ...
#
tantek
aaronpk: aha
#
tantek
sandro: is there a way to increase the page size on an issue list?
#
tantek
sandro: magic ampersand pagesize is 100
#
rhiaro
I don't think it affects anything wrt what the director would say about progressing
#
tantek
sandro: something weird going on where I'm not seeing ... oh I see
#
tantek
sandro: there's an isopen that ended up in my link URL
#
tantek
sandro: the timeout link comes up with no URLs, just two closed, they don't show up unless I click on them
#
tantek
sandro: I need to add the isclosed
#
tantek
sandro: we have two closed
#
tantek
sandro: one closed not satisfied
#
tantek
sandro: from azeroth
#
tantek
sandro: and that gets us to 52
#
tantek
sandro: when there are 57
#
tantek
sandro: still 5 missing but we can nail those down after the call
#
tantek
sandro: I think we're in good shape for the transition request
#
tantek
sandro: short of deciding we are ready, Evan?
#
tantek
eprodrom: that sounds good
#
julien
wooo!
#
tantek
eprodrom: are we ready for a motion to move WebSub to CR?
#
tantek
eprodrom: I think we are
#
julien
yes!
#
aaronpk
I just pushed a new ED with the at risk features
#
tantek
eprodrom: I'd like PROPOSE: Recommend moving WebSub to Candidate Recommendation
#
tantek
eprodrom: we have a couple of editorial changes from today
#
ben_thatmustbeme
recommend or request?
#
eprodrom
PROPOSED: recommend moving Websub to Candidate Recommendation
#
tantek
aaronpk: I think they're actually all done already
#
tantek
(laughter)
#
sandro
+1 (With changed approved in this meeting)
#
julien
+!
#
julien
+1
#
eprodrom
+1
#
tantek
eprodrom: if that is the case I think we are resolved
#
eprodrom
RESOLVED: recommend moving Websub to Candidate Recommendation
#
sandro
RRSAgent, pointer?
#
tantek
sandro: excellent
#
julien
:partyparrot:
#
tantek
eprodrom: that would mean we ...
#
tantek
eprodrom: we limited the agenda to the WebSub CR
#
tantek
eprodrom: we scheduled 2 hours but we got this done in an hour
#
tantek
eprodrom: unless objections, I'd like to close up the call
#
tantek
sandro: sounds good
#
tantek
(no objection)
#
eprodrom
trackbot, end meeting
#
Zakim
As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, eprodrom, julien, rhiaro, sandro, ben_thatmustbeme, tantek, !
#
trackbot
Zakim, list attendees
#
trackbot
is ending a teleconference.
#
tantek
eprodrom: thank everyone
#
trackbot
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
#
RRSAgent
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-social-minutes.html trackbot
#
trackbot
RRSAgent, bye
#
RRSAgent
I see no action items
#
tantek
eprodrom: congrats on a job well done
#
Loqi
julien has 3 karma in this channel (4 overall)
#
Loqi
aaronpk has 72 karma in this channel (1265 overall)
#
tantek
sandro: crack open the ?!
#
aaronpk
i forgot to ask, is it worth publishing a new WD with these changes, or should this go straight to the CR version?
#
tantek
prepare it as a CR
#
rhiaro
I think I found the last of the unlabelled issues
#
rhiaro
There is one waiting for commentor https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/84 but I think Rob is not interested, so timeout?
#
tantek
yes if the timeout period has expired
#
rhiaro
oh wait that's the content moved one, I guess I can mark it satisfied on that basis
#
aaronpk
yeah i believe nothing was left in that issue that wasn't moved to other issues
#
tantek
I'm going to capture this in the minutes
#
tantek
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
#
tantek
oops it left
#
tantek
rhiaro: can you help with minutes post-processing?
#
aaronpk
CR is staged
#
Loqi
[Julien Genestoux] WebSub
#
tantek
in reading the log, it's pretty funny that the agenda was not found
#
tantek
for today
#
tantek
at least initially
#
tantek
though I suppose I was also
#
tantek
unintentionally in both cases I'm sure
#
aaronpk
404 chair not found
#
tantek
rhiaro: can you run the script to create https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-04-04-minutes ?
#
tantek
hopes rhiaro is still awake in whatever timezone she's in
#
tantek
or I suppose ben_thatmustbeme knows how to do that too
#
rhiaro
but yeah I'll click the button
#
tantek
thank you!
#
rhiaro
heh julien your tweet is a tiny bit premature, we have to get director approval first :)
#
rhiaro
but close enough
#
tantek
hey rhiaro sandro do we have a Micropub PR update?
#
tantek
I'm unsure where we're stuck on that
#
rhiaro
hm no reply from ralph yet, we should poke him
#
tantek
wait seriously for over a week?
#
tantek
let's add the after-call discussion about the remaining issues as "after call" to the minutes
#
tantek
because it is relevant context IMO
#
tantek
adding
#
rhiaro
Your internet beat my internet
#
rhiaro
Goodnight all
#
Loqi
night
#
tantek
good night rhiaro
tantek and timbl joined the channel
#
Zakim
excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed
#
Loqi
yeah who invited you anyway Zakim
#
dtluna
–≤dtluna++
#
dtluna
dtluna++
#
Loqi
dtluna: You can't karma yourself!
#
dtluna
meanie
#
tantek
creates the stub wiki page for TPAC 2017, as he did last April for TPAC 2016
#
tantek
in case anyone wants to add to it
jaensen and cwebber joined the channel
#
cwebber
o/
#
cwebber
someone want to read a draft about possible decentralized anti-abuse systems before I post to my blog?
#
cwebber
aaronpk: can I volunteer you? :)
#
aaronpk
oh boy
#
aaronpk
i can take a look
#
cwebber
https://identi.ca/cwebber/note/e0ulEdSTRZCSBxDnEckp5g here it is on pump.io, I'm working on moving it to my blog
#
cwebber
(first couple paragraphs should probably be merged)
#
aaronpk
will take a look when i finish this thing