16:06:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
16:06:38 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/01/31-social-irc
16:06:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:06:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
16:06:41 <cwebber2> scribe: cwebber2
16:06:42 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:06:42 <trackbot> Date: 31 January 2018
16:07:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> need to let w3c know to change that so it says the correct Meeting: line
16:08:27 <aaronpk> s/Social Web Working/Social Web Community/
16:09:41 <cwebber2> aaronpk: we seem to be missing meeting minutes for last two weeks
16:09:52 <cwebber2> cwebber2: seeing if we had it via trackbot... doesn't look like it
16:09:54 <cwebber2> aaronpk: nope
16:10:28 <cwebber2> aaronpk: ajordan  converted the minutes from 2 meetings ago from their IRC logs, maybe they can do that again?  we'll just have to bump that to next time he's available
16:10:47 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I don't think there's any more we can do on that front, so let's move on
16:11:01 <cwebber2> TOPIC: future of the specs / post-socialwg-spec-work
16:11:23 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I believe we've had conversation on this on the past
16:11:31 <cwebber2> cwebber2: yes we've at least agreed that the socialcg continues work
16:11:37 <cwebber2> aaronpk: and eratta processing
16:11:53 <cwebber2> cwebber2: can we also say horray the spec work is done?
16:11:56 <cwebber2> aaronpk: yes, congrats all
16:11:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> congrats all
16:12:07 <cwebber2> eprodrom: yes!  i think everything is done
16:12:12 <cwebber2> aaronpk: yes we've solved everything
16:12:20 <cwebber2> eprodrom: yes and I think today was the last day of the socialwg right?
16:12:24 <cwebber2> aaronpk: technically true
16:12:32 <eprodrom> q+
16:12:51 <cwebber2> aaronpk: so with the understanding that we will be continuing work on specs here, including issues as they come in, what's the policy on publishing new editor's drafts
16:13:17 <cwebber2> eprodrom: yes this is Evan, I think we're not supposed to edit these at all... that's why we have eratta sections, there are errors on the eratta pages, that's it... the doc is supposed to be carved in stone
16:13:44 <cwebber2> q+
16:13:52 <eprodrom> q-
16:13:57 <aaronpk> ack cwebber2
16:13:58 <cwebber2> eprodrom: whether we build extensions that happen, or things that change in documents, but I think having any... since the main document on w3.org can't change, I don't think we should be planning anything unless there's a .1 version, energy should go into errata
16:14:27 <eprodrom> I just muted, thanks
16:15:07 <ben_thatmustbeme> thanks, was getting feedback
16:15:30 <eprodrom> q+
16:15:32 <aaronpk> ack eprodrom
16:15:36 <cwebber2> cwebber2: I agree, we *could* do 1.1 type things but we need a lot of justification, json-ld is doing that after a few years but it's a lot of effort... we should focus on extensions and eratta
16:15:42 <aaronpk> q- cwebber
16:15:45 <cwebber2> aaronpk: yes I agree
16:16:30 <cwebber2> eprodrom: we do have a lot of documents that can be edited, for instance as2.rocks, micropub.rocks, the test suites which can be edited as needed... for AS2 there's a lot of example documents which are fair play for editing those... I think it's really the big docs that go up on the big site which we need to worry about leaving carved in stone
16:16:41 <cwebber2> aaronpk: yes there's always room for improvement on examples and tests
16:16:56 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I did most of the work on the examples and test suites but there's always more that can be improved
16:16:56 <cwebber2> q+
16:17:02 <aaronpk> ack cwebber
16:17:10 <eprodrom> q+
16:18:10 <cwebber2> cwebber2: would we want to make certain items official work items?  eg anti-abuse and account migration and etc
16:18:16 <aaronpk> ack eprodrom
16:18:21 <cwebber2> aaronpk: we should at least document what we're currently working on, eg putting up on the wiki
16:19:48 <cwebber2> eprodrom: I think that Chris you just came up with like 3 items, I think these are going to be implementation issues... they're things where you're not going to have a standardization process, people go out and build it.  for things like account migration, I think all the building blocks are there already.  or global person search... everything you need to make that work exists, so it really comes down to people writing the software and building the
16:19:48 <cwebber2> systems to do it.  if there are interop issues in the future it makes sense for standardization, but I don't think they require a standards doc
16:20:05 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I agree, these kinds of things are not things we should try to standardize before anything is implemented
16:20:16 <cwebber2> aaronpk: we should try to implement and see what can be implemented
16:20:43 <cwebber2> aaronpk: the three you mentioned are pretty big, and I've got several which are big things to do... we've got a lot of groundwork to cover based on the systems we put out there
16:21:04 <cwebber2> eprodrom: maybe one thing we could do is RFI for "here's something I'd like to see implemented" and see discussions around those requests
16:21:06 <eprodrom> RFI = request for implementation
16:21:13 <cwebber2> aaronpk: that's a great idea and something to put on the wiki
16:21:19 <cwebber2> q+
16:21:23 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/RFI
16:21:25 <aaronpk> ack cwebber
16:22:36 <cwebber2> cwebber2: are we mostly seeing the SocialCG at this point as the extensions, errata, and community builder support group?
16:22:41 <cwebber2> aaronpk: sounds like a good characterization
16:22:45 <cwebber2> eprodrom: sounds reasonable to me
16:22:59 <cwebber2> cwebber2: I'm happy understanding that as the general direction then too
16:23:15 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
16:23:29 <cwebber2> aaronpk: cool, in that case it sounds like we have a good idea of a path forward... Chris, do you want to take on an action item to add your list of RFIs for lack of better term to the wiki page?
16:23:57 <cwebber2> cwebber2: should we namespace it under SocialCG/RFI/foo?
16:24:34 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1 to front page
16:24:38 <ben_thatmustbeme> unless it gets huge
16:24:40 <cwebber2> aaronpk: let's keep it flat, we could link to SocialCG/RFI
16:24:52 <cwebber2> cwebber2: you made a good point about it being front-and-center, maybe just put it on the front page?
16:25:09 <cwebber2> aaronpk: let's put the content as bullet points on the bullet page, and specific details can go on SocialCG/RFI
16:25:29 <cwebber2> aaronpk: anything else on this before we move on?
16:25:40 <eprodrom> nope
16:26:02 <cwebber2> TOPIC: ActivityStreams open issues / errata
16:26:42 <cwebber2> eprodrom: for AS2 we have around 25 open issues right now... some of them are backed up almost a year... some are relatively recent, which is good which means people have been paying attention to the document
16:27:23 <cwebber2> eprodrom: if I were to classify what these issues are I would say they probably break down into 4 buckets: 1) problems with the JSON-LD schema document... I think I'm very reluctant to mess around with that since publication (I'm reluctant to mess aroudn with it at all but am glad rhiaro is)
16:27:24 <cwebber2> q+
16:27:34 <cwebber2> eprodrom: I think it's probably ok to make corrections to it but I'm not sure
16:27:34 <cwebber2> q-
16:27:41 <cwebber2> q+ to talk about context extensions
16:28:00 <cwebber2> eprodrom: 2) problems with example files, specifically files in the test suite... as far as I'm concerned they're wide open for editing
16:28:01 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
16:28:07 <cwebber2> eprodrom: those two are relatively easy to deal with
16:28:29 <cwebber2> eprodrom: 3) there are clear errors in the main specification documents, for those I think we write up errata and add them to the errata page... relatively easy
16:29:05 <cwebber2> eprodrom: 4) problems with clarity in the spec... when can you use items vs orderedItems... that's a point where it's not really an error in the document, it's something readers have a harder time understanding
16:29:17 <cwebber2> eprodrom: I guess my feeling would be, that is something we write other documents around
16:29:24 <cwebber2> eprodrom: we write other web pages, wiki pages, etc
16:29:29 <cwebber2> eprodrom: not sure that goes in errata
16:29:41 <cwebber2> eprodrom: that's how I'm kind of looking at these open issues... we'll see how it goes from there
16:30:18 <cwebber2> eprodrom: I'm a little bit concerned about the ones... I think the basic thing is getting the errata and getting the changes to the json-ld schema and example docs... once we get into the clarity things, that's external documents not part of the spec
16:30:21 <cwebber2> q?
16:30:28 <cwebber2> ack cwebber
16:30:28 <Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to talk about context extensions
16:30:30 <aaronpk> ack cwebber
16:31:15 <ajordan> present+
16:32:12 <cwebber2> cwebber2: one thing to know is we're now versioning json-ld contexts (especially important if doing linked data signatures if having extensions)
16:32:23 <cwebber2> eprodrom: that's specifically for extensions?
16:32:27 <cwebber2> cwebber2: yes that's the motivator
16:38:35 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
16:39:56 <rowan> rowan has joined #social
16:40:09 <cwebber2> cwebber2: we agreed on this in the SocialCG that we would version things so that if a new term was added, signatures wouldn't break
16:40:19 <eprodrom> Great
16:40:30 <cwebber2> eprodrom: that seems like a bad idea, we voted down versioning.  also doesn't that mean that a versioned Person would be different than the next Person?
16:40:48 <cwebber2> cwebber2: versioning vocabulary is different than versioning contexts... we're not changing the vocabulary, they point to the same Person
16:41:02 <cwebber2> eprodrom: we still don't want the context to change much, it's supposed to be fairly stable and a slow-moving process
16:42:03 <cwebber2> cwebber2: extra context to the context stuff: https://github.com/w3c-dvcg/ld-signatures/issues/9
16:42:04 <Loqi> [cwebber] #9 LD Signatures and json-ld contexts which grow
16:42:28 <ajordan> can we just say, let's not touch contexts until we resolve this?
16:42:38 <ajordan> maybe next week so we can loop in sandro
16:42:41 <cwebber2> eprodrom: it sounds like this horse is out of the barn... but can we discuss this
16:42:50 <cwebber2> cwebber2: let's pull in sandro, in the meanwhile please read this issue
16:42:54 <cwebber2> eprodrom: sure
16:43:48 <cwebber2> eprodrom: I'm a bit frustrated that we voted in the SocialWG and neither of the original editors voted on this
16:44:03 <cwebber2> eprodrom: but I guess I live with it... I guess we'll use this versioning system from now on
16:45:02 <cwebber2> cwebber2: we were trying to move forward with what the SocialWG agreed on, but I guess we either had a misunderstanding or made a mistake
16:45:19 <ajordan> q+
16:45:23 <cwebber2> q?
16:45:26 <aaronpk> ack ajordan
16:45:26 <cwebber2> ack ajordan
16:45:41 <cwebber2> ajordan: sorry to show up late... so I was reading some of the earlier IRC logs... what exactly am I doing for the minutes?
16:46:00 <cwebber2> aaronpk: we weren't sure of the state of the missing minutes from before... I know you posted some of them, but last meeting's was not included in that?
16:46:08 <cwebber2> ajordan: it should have been
16:46:12 <cwebber2> aaronpk: oops I misread the wiki
16:46:26 <cwebber2> ajordan: previous two should be there
16:46:34 <cwebber2> aaronpk: oh yep, you're right... we can resolve that agenda item
16:46:38 <cwebber2> ajordan: great, thanks
16:46:52 <cwebber2> aaronpk: looks like someone added a new topic item
16:47:18 <cwebber2> eprodrom: I added a topic for a software item, but if it's the last thing I'm happy to discuss it
16:47:24 <cwebber2> TOPIC: activitypub-mock
16:47:38 <eprodrom> https://gitlab.com/evanp/activitypub-mock
16:49:13 <cwebber2> eprodrom: awesome!  so based on the work in tags.pub and places.pub, in particular in testing that software, I found myself needing a test activitypub server.  instead of building ad-hoc mockups which I did initially, I ended up putting together a mock which implements most of activitypub.  It currently covers all the major endpoints, I'm gradually workign all the way through... doing the different activity types, as well as across federation.
16:49:13 <cwebber2> currently does federation with http signatures, it's mostly a process of getting it to do the rest of the commands.  I've started integrating with the servers I've done, though I think it may be useful for other software developers who want to test their other client to server and server to server implementations.  Only useful for nodejs users, but I think it would be a useful pattern for people doing activitypub
16:49:17 <cwebber2> aaronpk: sounds useful!
16:49:26 <cwebber2> cwebber2: yes very cool
16:49:38 <cwebber2> ajordan: I agree
16:49:52 <ajordan> agenda+ question about vWebmention spec
16:50:10 <ajordan> https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/#avoid-sending-webmentions-to-localhost
16:50:22 <cwebber2> TOPIC: question about webmention spec
16:51:16 <cwebber2> ajordan: so there's this section... over the winter break I went to implement lazymention, and the only thing we really dealt with was don't send things to localhost.  I'm unclear on what's the best way to determine localhost... is it to just look at the subnet mentioned in that section?  Seems too brittle but I'm not sure... how do you determine if an IP address is "local"?
16:51:57 <cwebber2> aaronpk: easiest way is to look at "localhost", but anyone can make a domain name that points at a loopback address, so strict check is to do DNS check first and then do lookup
16:52:33 <eprodrom> q+
16:52:52 <aaronpk> ack eprodrom
16:53:02 <cwebber2> cwebber2: just as an aside, those confused deputy attacks scare me
16:53:28 <cwebber2> eprodrom: just as an aside, nearly every unit test seems to run on localhost... how do folks unit test things for this prohibition?  I just haven't bothered so far
16:53:36 <ajordan> q+
16:53:38 <cwebber2> eprodrom: does anyone have a good pattern for testing this stuff locally?
16:53:40 <aaronpk> ack ajordan
16:54:13 <cwebber2> ajordan: well... I don't know if it's a good pattern, one thing you can do is you can use libraries that overload a node require to overload something that does a dns lookups and return a safe result
16:54:18 <cwebber2> ajordan: you could do it, I haven't bothered
16:54:19 <cwebber2> q+
16:54:24 <aaronpk> ack cwebber
16:55:00 <ajordan> s/a node require/Node's `require()`/
16:55:53 <cwebber2> cwebber2: you could set up the localhost server to only accept safe/mundane input and configure it... the safest route is to do it over a unix domain socket, though that isn't supported easily
16:55:55 <ajordan> FWIW Node's HTTP module does Unix domain sockets out of the box
16:56:15 <cwebber2> eprodrom: yes I think a runtime flag that allows for connecting to localhost... though your test coverage is kind of left out there, you never test that that thing actually works
16:56:41 <cwebber2> cwebber2: I assume by that thing you mean testing that you don't connect to localhost, since you are?
16:56:50 <cwebber2> eprodrom: yes exactly, it's a minor point but it's a head scratcher for me
16:57:00 <cwebber2> q+
16:57:26 <cwebber2> ajordan: I might write an npm module to determine "is this in that IP subnet" and that could go through the effort of stubbing out the dns resolution for that?
16:57:33 <cwebber2> ajordan: test once use everywhere
16:58:08 <cwebber2> eprodrom: I think other things you can do such as setting up a virtual host, etc... that thing can connect to a hostname rather than localhost, etc... it's just a funny thing that doesn't seem to match well with typical unit hosting practices
16:58:35 <cwebber2> ajordan: in pump.io we (and by we I mean eprodrom 5 years ago) we have a scriptname that puts things in /etc/host and you can get local domain names and expect them to fail?  I dunno....
16:58:40 <cwebber2> eprodrom: it's so terrible
16:58:48 <cwebber2> ajordan: it came in handy, but you don't want to know the details
16:59:03 <eprodrom> Agreed!
16:59:06 <cwebber2> ajordan: I was debugging soemthing with dialback.. it's a gary house of funhouse killers and serial killer clowns
16:59:07 <cwebber2> q?
16:59:13 <aaronpk> ack cwebber
16:59:28 <ajordan> s/gary/scary/
16:59:50 <ajordan> s/funhouse killers/funhouse mirrors/
17:00:16 <ajordan> sounds great
17:00:26 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
17:00:28 <cwebber2> cwebber2: should we try to pull in sandro and tantek for an upcoming meeting?
17:01:04 <cwebber2> eprodrom: we should have the conversation, I think the main thing is compatibility, if the main reason we have to compare things is the context string I want to make sure we're doing it for the right reasons and that it works
17:01:12 <eprodrom> Thanks!
17:01:22 <aaronpk> present+
17:01:25 <cwebber2> aaronpk: at the top of the hour, meeting adjourned!
17:01:28 <cwebber2> present+
17:01:28 <aaronpk> don't forget to present+ for the minutes
17:01:36 <cwebber2> present+ eprodrom
17:01:37 <aaronpk> chair: aaronpk
17:01:39 <cwebber2> present+ ajordan
17:01:47 <cwebber2> present+ ben_thatmustbeme
17:01:53 <cwebber2> trackbot, end meeting
17:01:53 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:01:55 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ajordan, aaronpk, cwebber, eprodrom, ben_thatmustbeme
17:02:00 <aaronpk> 🎉
17:02:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:02:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/01/31-social-minutes.html trackbot
17:02:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:02:02 <RRSAgent> I see no action items