[17:00:18] Lisa joins the room
[17:04:51] bart.vrancken joins the room
[17:06:01] bart.vrancken is now known as Bart
[17:09:42] <Lisa> Hi Bart
[17:09:50] <Bart> Hi Lisa
[17:09:56] <Bart> not much action here ?
[17:09:58] <Lisa> Nope
[17:10:15] <Lisa> I'm just pinging St Peter now that I'm not the only one (when it's just me, I always assume I've made the error...)
[17:12:50] stpeter joins the room
[17:12:56] <stpeter> hellp
[17:12:58] <stpeter> hello even
[17:13:20] <Lisa> Hi :)
[17:14:10] <Bart> Hello Peter
[17:14:37] <Bart> Is the session cancelled ? (or not confirmed ?)
[17:15:34] <stpeter> I neglected to send out a reminder
[17:16:20] <Lisa> Anything you want to talk about anyway?
[17:16:35] <stpeter> sure!
[17:17:44] <stpeter> but we've had a lot of discussion threads and it might be more productive to have a review meeting after the document editor has had a chance to publish an updated version
[17:18:04] <Lisa> Ok
[17:18:08] <stpeter> Lisa: is there a need for additional reviews of the OAuth 1.0 work?
[17:18:16] <Bart> so, we postpone it a little bit
[17:18:18] <stpeter> that would be draft-hammer-oauth
[17:18:27] <stpeter> (Informational)
[17:19:29] <stpeter> I could ping some OAuth experts about reading it over as a sanity check
[17:21:10] <Lisa> Yes, there probably should be
[17:21:14] <Lisa> I haven't kicked it off myself yet
[17:21:19] <stpeter> I agree that it would be helpful to publish that as a baseline, and sooner rather than later
[17:21:27] <Lisa> but it would be good to have Roy and/or Julian on board with a review
[17:21:28] <stpeter> it = LC?
[17:21:37] <stpeter> yes
[17:21:51] <Lisa> and one can always ask for an early secdir review
[17:21:52] <stpeter> perhaps WGLC would be appropriate
[17:23:05] <stpeter> I have pinged Pasi Eronen and Tim Polk about a review and they said we could arrange for an early secdir review
[17:23:08] <Lisa> definitely
[17:23:24] <stpeter> but that was about 1.1, not 1.0
[17:23:29] <Lisa> Eran already informally asked for that, but did he set a deadline
[17:26:05] <stpeter> right, but some one-to-one pinging might be helpful as well
[17:27:36] <Lisa> You bet
[17:28:30] <stpeter> I need to review all the mailing list threads and summarize the consensus so we can validate where we stand
[17:28:46] <Lisa> Ok
[17:32:30] <stpeter> I think we're making good progress on the list, but I know Eran is travelling this week so he might not have time to push out updated versions soon -- checking in with him now
[17:33:38] <stpeter> can we have a WGLC about a document that is not a WG item?
[17:35:22] <Lisa> You can 
[17:38:44] <stpeter> that's good to know
[17:38:56] <stpeter> Blaine and I will talk about timing for that
[17:39:09] <Lisa> excellent
[17:39:12] <Lisa> TTYL
[17:39:37] <stpeter> I've just emailed Eran for feedback about when he might be able to push out revised versions of the various I-Ds
[17:40:09] Lisa leaves the room
[17:44:21] <stpeter> Bart: what do you think?
[17:45:18] <Bart> I think the next time will be more interesting if the drafts are revised :-)
[17:45:23] <stpeter> yes
[17:45:25] <stpeter> agreed :)
[17:46:36] <Bart> And after that I hope the discussion can continue about the recursive delegation draft
[17:47:00] <stpeter> I hope so too
[17:47:10] <stpeter> I'm not opposed to discussion of that
[17:47:25] <stpeter> I just want to make sure we finish what we're supposed to finish first
[17:47:30] <stpeter> or make better progress
[17:47:34] <Bart> I agree
[17:48:05] <Bart> so, see you next time
[17:48:11] <stpeter> ok
[17:48:13] <stpeter> thanks
[17:48:24] Bart leaves the room
[20:44:10] stpeter leaves the room