2017-04-04 UTC
timbl, tantek, dtluna and eprodrom joined the channel
# 14:58 eprodrom lambadalambda is a good nick # 14:58 eprodrom two great tastes that taste great together # 14:59 eprodrom I'm going to call in now # 14:59 eprodrom There's no agenda page julien joined the channel
# 15:02 julien good morning Aaron! RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim joined the channel
# 15:05 rhiaro though if my connectino drops, someone be backup # 15:07 sandro sandro: I think we're okay, as long as we open the floor for objections via email afterwords # 15:08 rhiaro aaronpk: We've addressed all the issues and closed them # 15:08 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 # 15:08 rhiaro ... Pretty sure everything in there got turned into new issues and addressed # 15:08 rhiaro sandro: I read over it this morning and it seems clear to me that we addressed it elsewhere # 15:09 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? # 15:09 rhiaro ... And then hopefully the originator won't be upset about that # 15:09 eprodrom PROPOSED: close issue #84 since all relevant points have been addressed in separate issues # 15:10 Zakim Present: aaronpk, eprodrom, julien, rhiaro # 15:10 Zakim On IRC I see RRSAgent, julien, eprodrom, timbl, dtluna, ben_thatmustbeme, Loqi, wilkie, jet, lambadalambda, rhiaro, aaronpk, bigbluehat, KjetilK, bitbear, dwhly, csarven, mattl, # 15:10 eprodrom RESOLVED: close issue #84 since all relevant points have been addressed in separate issues # 15:12 rhiaro My irc dropped on laptop but I'm scrbing offline btw # 15:19 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. # 15:19 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. # 15:19 rhiaro aaronpk: We reference it just to say what utf-8 is. # 15:19 rhiaro sandro: we can change that reference if the director has a problem with it. tantek joined the channel
# 15:19 rhiaro aaronpk: I went through this with webmention.. # 15:19 rhiaro sandro: It's obsoleted by a bunch so you need to figure out which one # 15:19 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. # 15:19 rhiaro sandro: Capability URLs? could we swithc that to informative? # 15:19 rhiaro aaronpk: Callback URL should be capability URL... SHOULD is normative right? # 15:19 rhiaro aaronpk: Hmm. All it's really saying is use a really long token in the URL. # 15:19 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? # 15:19 rhiaro ... we could rephrase it as "an unguessable URL, see capbability URL.." # 15:19 rhiaro aaronpk: We can say it's a unique unguessable URL # 15:19 rhiaro sandro: Let's say that. Then just have the link to capability URLs # 15:20 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. # 15:20 rhiaro apparently I can only have the call or irc, not both # 15:20 eprodrom scribenick: eprodrom # 15:20 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." # 15:20 tantek aaronpk: sounds like we are trying to solve a problem that is no longer a problem # 15:20 eprodrom scribenick: tantek # 15:21 julien I would just adds that it's based on HTTP # 15:21 julien and maybe mention webhooks # 15:21 tantek julien: I would mention HTTP in the abstract also # 15:21 tantek julien: as maybe webhooks because this is a pattern a lot of people know about # 15:22 sandro sandro: first sentence, "... based on http webhooks" # 15:22 tantek sandro: moving along through the transition request. changes... # 15:22 tantek sandro: I'm fuzzy at what changes at PR are supposed to be # 15:22 tantek sandro: it is supposed to be changes since widely reviewed version # 15:23 tantek sandro: could we have changes since versions of pubsubhubbub? # 15:23 tantek sandro: if I was coming to this since reviewing PuSH I would want to see changes since that # 15:24 tantek tantek: sounds like what we did with AS with a Changes since AS1 summary section # 15:24 tantek aaronpk: maybe a section on changes since PuSH 0.4 # 15:24 tantek aaronpk: and then note that no changes since PuSH 0.4 and FPWD # 15:24 tantek sandro: as a user I want a short list of normative changes # 15:25 tantek sandro: if I had old code, I would want to know # 15:25 tantek aaronpk: there may be changes that require more security # 15:26 tantek sandro: is it safe to say that we expect all previous conforming implementations to be interoperable with this? # 15:26 tantek sandro: does the spec for 0.4 say what needs to change since 0.3? # 15:26 tantek julien: the spec doesn't have it. I wrote it on the mailing list at the time # 15:26 tantek sandro: I just added to the transition request # 15:27 tantek aaronpk: should I add something to the document to that effect? # 15:27 tantek sandro: it's hard without knowing how well we met that goal # 15:27 tantek sandro: later on we can tell how true that turned out to be # 15:29 tantek tantek: could we offer intent? fixing spec vs fixing impls if we find breaks during CR? # 15:29 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 ... # 15:29 tantek sandro: for example there's a google hub running, I would hope we remain interop with them? # 15:29 tantek julien: I'm not sure google hub still runs, or is completely compliant with 0.4 # 15:30 tantek julien: the capability URLs are good example of this # 15:30 tantek aaronpk: another example of a change that might break things is the new stricter requirement for matching content-types # 15:30 tantek aaronpk: that was something probably happening before # 15:30 tantek sandro: common cases we would expect to work the same # 15:31 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 # 15:32 tantek sandro: anything else we would want to mark at risk? # 15:32 tantek tantek: marking it at risk gives us the option of droping it without going to another CR # 15:32 tantek tantek: that is, we can make that change and still go directly to PR # 15:33 tantek sandro: is there anybody that might be attached to the link tags being in the body? # 15:34 tantek aaronpk: we said for HTML, link tags must be in the head # 15:34 tantek julien: I don't think anyone would be attached to it # 15:34 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 # 15:34 tantek julien: it is theoretical, I haven't seen anyone in particular # 15:35 tantek aaronpk: it seems like HTML only allows link tags in the head element # 15:36 tantek aaronpk: from what I can tell, link element must be used in the html head element # 15:36 tantek ben_thatmustbeme: that question is do you want the spec to still work even with non-conforming HTML # 15:37 tantek sandro: the link element is allowed in the body for certain contexts # 15:37 tantek sandro: something about RDFa and/or, something # 15:37 tantek aaronpk: this is regarding an issue I brought up # 15:37 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 # 15:38 tantek aaronpk: limiting it to the head is a security precaution # 15:38 tantek sandro: why don't we mark this at risk in case we get harsh feedback during CR # 15:38 sandro PROPOSAL: Mark the change "Only allow <link> tags in the HTML <head> element" as At Risk for CR # 15:39 sandro RESOLVED: Mark the change "Only allow <link> tags in the HTML <head> element" as At Risk for CR # 15:40 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 # 15:41 tantek sandro: we already have host meta discovery at risk # 15:41 tantek aaronpk: which is a section inside the SOTD called "At Risk" # 15:41 tantek sandro: sounds good. almost like tantek was familiar with what CSS does :) # 15:42 tantek sandro: these others it's hard to see how someone would disagree with them # 15:43 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 # 15:43 tantek sandro: it sounds like we'll probably drop host meta # 15:43 tantek eprodrom: but it will fall back to other techniques too # 15:44 tantek tantek: if we want to drop it, we should drop it from the CR version # 15:44 tantek eprodrom: should we have a motion to drop it from the CR version # 15:44 tantek sandro: I'm a little worried because there are some people that like it # 15:45 tantek aaronpk: it's a negotiation between publishers and subscribers # 15:45 tantek sandro: we're going to gather implementation experience with the test suite # 15:46 tantek sandro: it is likely we'll have some folks that implement it because of tests # 15:46 tantek aaronpk: otherwise they won't find some publishers # 15:47 tantek aaronpk: for publishers, it is the third recommended option, as a should # 15:47 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? # 15:47 tantek aaronpk: for subscribers, first check link header, then http body (XML payload or head of html page), then host meta # 15:48 tantek aaronpk: it is entirely possible that publishers all advertise via http header or body, in which case clients will never hit 3rd case # 15:48 tantek tantek: do we know of any implementations that require it? # 15:48 tantek aaronpk: this would be are there any publishers that only advertise via host meta? # 15:49 tantek sandro: I wouldn't use that as a publisher unless we knew most of the clients support that # 15:50 tantek tantek: it sounds like we should include a note in the spec and/or the test suite accordingly # 15:51 tantek sandro: particular in the at-risk language in description of host meta we should have an issue # 15:52 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 # 15:52 tantek eprodrom: I think we should leave it at risk at move on # 15:53 tantek sandro: what I've written is that no analysis was done # 15:53 rhiaro We have like the user stories which has a subscription requirement # 15:53 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 # 15:53 ben_thatmustbeme was our only requirement to "standardize pubsubhubbub and not break current implementations" # 15:53 tantek aaronpk: we have all the user stories which have subscription requirement # 15:54 tantek eprodrom: apologies pubsubhubbub was not one of the charter inputs # 15:54 tantek sandro: I'll figure out what the right thing to say is # 15:54 tantek sandro: going through the user stories and connecting this seems like quite a bit of work # 15:55 tantek sandro: I'll add the sentence that this functional area is in the charter # 15:55 tantek tantek: sandro did you see rhiaro's document? # 15:55 rhiaro that's on the wiki somewhere too, sorry all my things are lagging # 15:57 tantek sandro: is there a way to increase the page size on an issue list? # 15:58 rhiaro I don't think it affects anything wrt what the director would say about progressing # 15:58 tantek sandro: something weird going on where I'm not seeing ... oh I see # 15:58 tantek sandro: there's an isopen that ended up in my link URL # 15:59 tantek sandro: the timeout link comes up with no URLs, just two closed, they don't show up unless I click on them # 16:00 tantek sandro: still 5 missing but we can nail those down after the call # 16:00 tantek sandro: I think we're in good shape for the transition request # 16:00 tantek sandro: short of deciding we are ready, Evan? # 16:00 tantek eprodrom: are we ready for a motion to move WebSub to CR? # 16:01 tantek eprodrom: I'd like PROPOSE: Recommend moving WebSub to Candidate Recommendation # 16:01 tantek eprodrom: we have a couple of editorial changes from today # 16:01 eprodrom PROPOSED: recommend moving Websub to Candidate Recommendation # 16:01 tantek aaronpk: I think they're actually all done already # 16:01 tantek eprodrom: if that is the case I think we are resolved # 16:01 eprodrom RESOLVED: recommend moving Websub to Candidate Recommendation # 16:02 tantek eprodrom: we limited the agenda to the WebSub CR # 16:02 tantek eprodrom: we scheduled 2 hours but we got this done in an hour # 16:02 tantek eprodrom: unless objections, I'd like to close up the call # 16:03 eprodrom trackbot, end meeting # 16:03 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, eprodrom, julien, rhiaro, sandro, ben_thatmustbeme, tantek, ! # 16:03 Loqi julien has 3 karma in this channel (4 overall) # 16:03 Loqi aaronpk has 72 karma in this channel (1265 overall) # 16:05 aaronpk i forgot to ask, is it worth publishing a new WD with these changes, or should this go straight to the CR version? # 16:05 rhiaro I think I found the last of the unlabelled issues # 16:06 rhiaro oh wait that's the content moved one, I guess I can mark it satisfied on that basis # 16:06 aaronpk yeah i believe nothing was left in that issue that wasn't moved to other issues # 16:08 tantek rhiaro: can you help with minutes post-processing? # 16:10 tantek in reading the log, it's pretty funny that the agenda was not found # 16:11 tantek hopes rhiaro is still awake in whatever timezone she's in # 16:12 tantek or I suppose ben_thatmustbeme knows how to do that too # 16:13 rhiaro heh julien your tweet is a tiny bit premature, we have to get director approval first :) # 16:13 tantek hey rhiaro sandro do we have a Micropub PR update? # 16:13 rhiaro hm no reply from ralph yet, we should poke him # 16:18 tantek let's add the after-call discussion about the remaining issues as "after call" to the minutes tantek and timbl joined the channel
# 18:33 Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed # 18:53 tantek creates the stub wiki page for TPAC 2017, as he did last April for TPAC 2016 jaensen and cwebber joined the channel
# 21:31 cwebber someone want to read a draft about possible decentralized anti-abuse systems before I post to my blog? # 21:31 cwebber aaronpk: can I volunteer you? :) # 21:32 cwebber (first couple paragraphs should probably be merged)
eprodrom lambadalambda is a good nick
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-social-irc
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
ben_thatmustbeme present+
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.
tantek rhiaro: can you run the script to create https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-04-04-minutes ?