See also: IRC log
<ajordan> hold on I'll look up how to do it
<ajordan> okay let's do this thing
<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-08-01-minutes
<ben_thatmustbeme> i can scribe in the mean time
<tantek> scribenick: ajordan
<ben_thatmustbeme> nevermind
<tantek> PROPOSED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-08-01-minutes minutes
+1
<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: PROPOSED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-08-01-minutes minutes
oh dear
<eprodrom> we hereby resolve to propose to resolve...
RESOLUTION: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-08-01-minutes 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/
<cwebber2> https://test.activitypub.rocks/
<sandro> woo hoo Chris!
cwebber2: last two weeks I was complaining about yak shaving, I had to fix stuff in my language
<cwebber2> https://chaos.dustycloud.org/u/tester
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]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=104065&oldid=104039
<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> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#specification-profiles
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> https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/
<cwebber2> https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-9-may-to-present
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 https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-9-may-to-present
<tantek> also: s/E.1 Changes from 13 April 2017 to present/E.1 Changes from 9 May 2017 to present
<cwebber2> +1
+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 https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-9-may-to-present
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 pubsubhubbub.appspot.com now has a report in here
... it's their official hub and it passes all the tests
<aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/websub/blob/master/implementation-reports/HUB-pubsubhubbub-appspot-com.md
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
<tantek> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues
<tantek> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/110
<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
+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
<tantek> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/106
<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
<ben_thatmustbeme> https://github.com/w3c/websub/pull/118
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!
<tantek> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/97
<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: https://github.com/w3c/websub/pull/118/files
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 https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/97
<Loqi> [aaronpk] #97 Discussion for Host-Meta feature At Risk
<cwebber2> +0
<wilkie> +0
<eprodrom> +1
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
+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 https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/97
<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
<tantek> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/117
<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> pubsubhubbub.appspot.com 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 https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/117 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
+1
<rhiaro> +1
<wilkie> +1
RESOLUTION: close https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/117 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> https://github.com/w3c/websub/tree/master/implementation-reports
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
+0
<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
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
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
tantek: anything?
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
<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-08-29
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
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/I'm not/<ajordan> I'm not/ Succeeded: s/???/permalink/ Succeeded: s/thought/though/ Succeeded: s/???/it to be a normative part of the spec if that situation applies to you/ Succeeded: s/pubsub/pubhub/ Default Present: ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, tantek, aaronpk, ajordan, sandro, tsyesika, cwebber, eprodrom Present: ben_thatmustbeme rhiaro tantek aaronpk ajordan sandro tsyesika cwebber eprodrom cwebber2 Found ScribeNick: ajordan Found ScribeNick: ben_thatmustbeme Inferring Scribes: ajordan, ben_thatmustbeme Scribes: ajordan, ben_thatmustbeme ScribeNicks: ajordan, ben_thatmustbeme Found Date: 15 Aug 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/08/15-social-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]