See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 09 June 2010
<jsalsman> +1.650.335... is jsalsman
<darobin> Scribe: Laura
<darobin> Scribenick: LauraA
<darobin> registration
<dom> ack
<dom> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/LondonF2F2010
darobin: reminder to register for the July F2F in London
dom: added list of hotels into the wiki page
<darobin> last week's minutes
darobin: minutes approved
darobin: proposal to public Policy Framework doc
... request publication on the 24th
... any opinions about 1st public working draft of policy framework?
<darobin> LauraA: sent an email with last changes right before call
<darobin> ... suggest people look at it
<dom> Editors draft of Policy Framework document
<darobin> .... it will change a bit, but minor changes -- overall well defined
<darobin> ... I think it's okay
RESOLUTION: CfC for Framework OK
darobin: objection to start call for consensus for framework doc?
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to issue CfC for Framework [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/09-dap-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-184 - Issue CfC for Framework [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-06-16].
darobin: no objections
... XACML profile ready for 1 public WD?
Suresh: any IPR analysis has been done?
darobin: no idea, frederick might know
Suresh: maybe someone from the staff could do this analysis?
drogersuk: you can go to the OASIS website for information
<dom> XACML TC
darobin: frederick involved in OASIS, he might be the right person to ask
<darobin> ACTION: frederick to investigate IP status for XACML [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/09-dap-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - Investigate IP status for XACML [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-06-16].
<dom> This TC operates under the RF on Limited Terms Mode of the OASIS IPR Policy
darobin: do we want to block on this?
<dom> (it's normative)
Suresh: need to check if references to XACML are normative of informative
darobin: agree, that can be an issue
<scribe> ... pending resolution for the XACML profile doc
RESOLUTION: issue CfC for XACML, noting that there are some potential IP issues to investigate
<Suresh> Would prefer to resolve it sooner than later
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to issue CfC for XACML, noting that there are some potential IP issues to investigate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/09-dap-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-186 - Issue CfC for XACML, noting that there are some potential IP issues to investigate [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-06-16].
darobin: third doc Examples document
... it is not very normative, should we make it REC track?
<dom> XACML Profile draft
<dom> DAP WG home page
dom: suggests making it a non-normative recommendation
<dom> Policy Examples
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/policy/Examples.html
RESOLUTION: issue CfC for Examples, rectrack/non-normative
darobin: are we Ok with the CfC for the examples doc, but non-normative?
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to issue CfC for Examples, rectrack/non-normative [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/09-dap-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-187 - Issue CfC for Examples, rectrack/non-normative [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-06-16].
<darobin> Frederick on policy reqs reorg
<dom> Proposed rework of policy requirements
darobin: e-mail from Frederick about policy reqs, suggesting reorganisation
... any opinions on this proposal? anyone read it?
<jsalsman> I read it. I'm confused about what a prompt is
dom: suggest moving it to CVS
<dom> ISSUE-28?
<trackbot> ISSUE-28 -- Requirement for NO security prompting -- pending review
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/28
jsalsman: conflicting position papers in the action item number 28, issue 28
... 3 different position docs: 2 in agreement, 1 against
<jsalsman> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/28
darobin: not sure about the impact on this doc
jsalsman: ambiguity about what it is a prompt
... saying we want to eliminate prompts may not be the right thing (both modal and non-modal, they are both promtps)
darobin: the idea is to avoid prompts as far as possible
bryan_sullivan: intent to minimise prompt
... policy can be defined to provide choice in the level of prompting
... goal is not to eliminate prompts entirely, that's not possible
alissa: we might need to clarify what we understand under prompt, modal prompt etc.
<drogersuk> +1
alissa: having a definition might be helpful
drogersuk: since we've separated the docs, we need to address that so that one can not take the APIs separately without taking into account the policy bit
darobin: who wrote the piece about convinience or not of prompt?
drogersuk: probably bondi
darobin: need a person to assign this action to
<darobin> ACTION: Laura to propose clarification language around prompting, involving Paddy and James as needed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/09-dap-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-188 - Propose clarification language around prompting, involving Paddy and James as needed [on Laura Arribas - due 2010-06-16].
darobin: back to previous topic, should we give an action to frederick to put reqs doc into CVS?
dom: I'll do it
darobin: CfC for reqs doc?
RESOLUTION: Issue a CfC for Policy Reqs
... no objections
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to Issue a CfC for Policy Reqs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/09-dap-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Issue a CfC for Policy Reqs [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-06-16].
darobin: anything else about policy?
... nothing.
darobin: more docs to publish
... reqs doc and rule set doc
<dom> +1 on waiting for ruleset
alissa: for the W3C privacy doc submitted rule set doc as position paper
... might be worth waiting after the W3C privacy workshop
darobin: anyone objects to waiting?
... agreed not to publish the privacy ruleset yet
Suresh: about the ruleset doc, is it API independent like policy or linked to APIs?
alissa: not handled yet how APIs deal with rulesets
<dom> ACTION-106?
<trackbot> ACTION-106 -- Robin Berjon to address how licenses could be handled by the API's -- due 2010-03-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/106
alissa: there are ideas but nothing documented yet
<dom> Alissa: thus far we haven't settled on how rulesets will intersect with the existing APIs
RESOLUTION: Issue a CfC for the Privacy Requirements
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to Issue a CfC for the Privacy Requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/09-dap-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-190 - Issue a CfC for the Privacy Requirements [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-06-16].
<darobin> Robin: split core and extended?
<darobin> alissa: prefer to split
<jmorris> +1
<darobin> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: split operatorName, apn, mcc, mnc to a separate, extended specification
<dom> a+
<jmorris> And SSID and Mac address are dropped, right?
<jsalsman> this is for http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/system-info/ right?
<darobin> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: drop operatorName, apn, mcc, mnc from SysInfo, revisit an Extended spec later
<Suresh> +1
RESOLUTION: drop operatorName, apn, mcc, mnc from SysInfo, revisit an Extended spec later
<dom> ACTION-183?
<trackbot> ACTION-183 -- Dzung Tran to drop connections[] and activeConnection, move to activeConnections[] and define clearly what "active" means -- due 2010-06-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/183
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to note codecs
darobin: any objections to CfC?
<jsalsman> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/system-info/#audio-and-video-codecs
<dom> ISSUE-85 was raised for the capture API
jsalsman: see some issues with this section, could be developed a bit more
darobin: james, could you review SysInfo and share it in the list?
jsalsman: sure
<dom> ACTION: James to send pre-LC editorial comments on sysinfo [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/09-dap-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Send pre-LC editorial comments on sysinfo [on James Salsman - due 2010-06-16].
<darobin> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue a CfC of SysInfo for LC after ACTION-191 and subsequent edits, ACTION-183, and operatorName, apn, mcc, mnc have been dropped
RESOLUTION: issue a CfC of SysInfo for LC after ACTION-191 and subsequent edits, ACTION-183, and operatorName, apn, mcc, mnc have been dropped
<dom> Contacts API updates
darobin: richard sent an e-mail, he made quite a few changes based on feedback received before
<dom> +1 on heartbeat publication
darobin: anyone objects to hearbeat publication for this API?
... no objections
<darobin> RESOLUTION: publish a heartbeat of Contacts
<darobin> ACTION: robin to request publication of Contacts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/09-dap-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-192 - Request publication of Contacts [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-06-16].
<darobin> richt, you missed the discussion!
<darobin> richt, anything you want to say before we move on?
<richt> sorry I'm having serious issues with phone and wifi today :-(
richt: sorry missed Contacts discussion
darobin: dom just asked about plans to move into LC
... given current status of spec, and feedback received we could move to LC during the July F2F
richt: I made some updates from the received feedback. there are a few questions that still need answering
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to ask about LC goals
richt: i'll be creating a new document before next week's call
... I would like to wait until the next version of the spec
... still need more feedback
... would like to produce a larger set of properties
<jmorris> +1 on waiting for feedback on larger set of properties
darobin: agree, if you have updates coming, it makes sense to wait
<dom> (this relates to ISSUE-71 I think)
darobin: objections on waiting for publication?
... no objections in the call
... other issues to be discussed in the mailing list
<darobin> RESOLUTION: overturn previous resolution to publish contacts, wait for next update
darobin: end of the agenda
... AOB?
thanks and good bye
<darobin> RRSAgent: make minutes