[meta] Publish First Public Working Draft

[anssiko]

RESOLUTION: publish the Open Screen Protocol as First Public Working Draft

via https://www.w3.org/2020/10/20-webscreens-minutes.html#r01

@mfoltzgoogle please ping us in this issue when you have completed the editorial pass so that we can advance into publication. In my view, the spec as is already meets or exceeds the expectations for an FPWD, and an editorial pass is nice to have, not required. I did one quick pass and did not find major issues.

@tidoust's assistance will be needed in making the publication happen given this is a FPWD. Any subsequent WD publications we can automate.

Based on my assessment we meet the W3C Process requirements to publish a (First Public) Working Draft:

• should document outstanding issues, and parts of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus, and
  • Open GH issues document any known outstanding issues
• may request publication of a Working Draft even if its content is considered unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.

Per the group's decision policy, we can publish earliest 28 October 2020.

[anssiko]

@mfoltzgoogle, do you still plan to do the editorial pass on the ED? As said, I feel the spec already exceed the FPWD expectations, so I don't think that is strictly needed. Let us know and we'll proceed accordingly.

@tidoust, can you please check the spec meets publication checks, validator and other checks needed? Thanks!

[anssiko]

Per 2021 Q1 virtual meeting discussion, we aim to address the following editorial issues before publication, or note them as open issues in the spec if addressing then needs more time:

• Make a required/default remote playback state table Make a required/default remote playback state table #148
• Meaning of receives-audio and receives-video capabilities Meaning of receives-audio and receives-video capabilities. #200 addressed by Update definitions of receives-audio and receives-video. #255
• Do agents need to support the Cookies extension Do agents need to support the Cookies extension (used in HelloRetryRequest)? #219 addressed by Update TLS usage. #252
• Determine if there is an advantage to session resumption outside of early data Determine if there is an advantage to session resumption outside of early data. #220 addressed by Update TLS usage. #252
• mv value needs encoding specified mv value needs encoding specified #239 addressed by Specify coding of mv. #253

Requires cross-group coordination, note as an inline open issue in FPWD:

• Use the same codec names as the media APIs Use the same codec names as the media APIs. #233

Here's the Call for Consensus mail to acquire the group's approval for the publication plan.

We aim to publish the FPWD no earlier than 10 March 2021.

@mfoltzgoogle @tidoust please check the issue list is valid and fill in any possible gaps.

[mfoltzgoogle]

anssiko@, I do not plan to resolve #233 before publishing the FPWD, as it would benefit from consultation with folks working on related APIs (e.g. Media Capabilities) in the Media WG.

[anssiko]

@mfoltzgoogle thanks for the review. Let’s note that open issue in the spec with the expectation Media WG will be consulted.

[anssiko]

We seem to be almost done with FPWD blockers thanks to swift updates by @mfoltzgoogle.

The remaining issues are #148 and #233.

@mfoltzgoogle feel free to close issues #219 #220 #239 if they're addressed.

[mfoltzgoogle]

We also discussed updating and landing the explainer (#168) to help outside groups review the spec with sufficient context. I plan to take that on after closing out the checklist above.

[anssiko]

Yes, landing the explainer with the FPWD would be nice to have. One convention is to put a link to the explainer into the header metadata to help discovery. Something like:

!Explainer: <a href="https://github.com/w3c/openscreenprotocol/blob/master/explainer.md">Open Screen Protocol Explainer</a>

[anssiko]

With PR #268 linking the spec to #233, we seem to tick all the boxes now. Thanks @mfoltzgoogle!

@tidoust can you work with @mfoltzgoogle to stage the spec for FPWD release no earlier than 10 March 2021, as noted in the CfC?

[tidoust]

@mfoltzgoogle What about the explainer (#168)? Are you planning to update and merge it in the next few days or should we go ahead without it?

[mfoltzgoogle]

If you can give me to the end of the week - if it's not done by then go ahead :-)

[anssiko]

@mfoltzgoogle, let's set our target FPWD publication date for next week. The CfC passed with no concerns.

IIRC, special releases such as FPWD that cannot be automated will happen on Tue and Thu, so we likely release either 16 or 18 March, @tidoust to confirm. Thanks for you diligent work in resolving all the blockers!

[tidoust]

@tidoust to confirm.

I confirm!

[anssiko]

✅ FPWD transition request approved: w3c/transitions#322

Non-blocking #248 to be integrated into the FPWD if merged by Thursday 18 March.

[tidoust]

if merged by Thursday 18 March.

Merging before Thursday, please :)

[mfoltzgoogle]

I merged the current snapshot of PR #248 so it can be incorporated into the FPWD.

[tidoust]

Achievement unlocked :)

First Public Working Draft published today at:
https://www.w3.org/TR/openscreenprotocol/