Re: Batch closing of issues (ISSUE-144, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-190, ISSUE-173, ISSUE-138) [pls Respond by Jan 30]

On Feb 11, 2013, at 16:14 , Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <> wrote:

> Hi Team,
> fyi: I have closed ISSUEs 190, 173, 138
> I have left ISSUE-144 and ISSUE-187 open for our Wednesday discussion.
> Regards,
> matthias

That means the sync-up update changes:

my usual pass, looking at TPE issues as reported in the draft and the database.

issue	in document		in database		action

These mis-match in what is said; I have a suggested action in the last column.

112		pending review	open			update DB
137		pending review	open			update DB
140		pending review	closed			remove from document
144		open			pending review	update document
160		pending review	closed			remove from document
190		pending review	closed			remove from document

None of these are in the document at all; I rather suspect that issues we have taken up or tried to resolve (open, pending review) should be inserted:

151				open	
152				open	
164				open	
176				open	
153				pending review	
173				pending review	
187				pending review	
141				raised	
143				raised	
167				raised	
182				raised	
185				raised	

These match; no action required…

111	postponed		postponed	
136	open			open	
159	raised			raised	
161	pending review	pending review	
168	open			open
138					closed

> On 21/01/2013 08:07, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>> Hi Team,
>> I suggest to batch-close the issues listed below that have been marked PENDING REVIEW for a while.
>> If you disagree with my proposal to close any of those issues, please respond by Wednesday, Jan 30.
>> Regards,
>> matthias
>> --------------------------------
>> ISSUE-138: Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI
>> The issue was how to obtain exceptions without Javascript-able real-estate. Our discussions are reflected in Section 6.8 of the current spec and (unless someone objects), I plan to close ISSUE-138.
>> --------------------------------
>> ISSUE-144: User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior while granting and for future requests?
>> IMHO, the new approach to exceptions has removed the requirements on the user agent.
>> As a consequence, I believe we can close this issue.
>> --------------------------------
>> ISSUE-187: What is the right approach to exception handling?
>> During the last call, I validated that there is a general preference for pursuing our rivised approach to exceptions (where the sites records preference and the UA may double-check it with the user). All participants can live with this approach.
>> I suggest to close ISSUE-187.
>> ----------------------------------
>> ISSUE-190: Sites with multiple first parties
>> Roy has proposed changes as response to ACTION-328 and (unless there are objections), I suggest to implement the changes suggested:
>> -----------------------------------
>> ISSUE-173: The TPE uses "top-level domain" in a sense that is not the normal meaning
>> AFAIK, David Singer has introduced the corresponding bug fixes to the spec. This ISSUE has thus been resolved and can be closed.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 21:24:58 UTC