Dan: this looks small

Ken: this looks ok to me maybe we can just pass it and propose close?

Sangwhan: ok with me...

Tess: I asked them some questions, and I pulled a colleague in. They've since replied to our questions but I haven't had a chance to wrap my head around this thread since.

David: It's also interesting because of the connection to Digital Goods API. The use case for this is really a separate spec that probably brings up more issues to think about.

Tess: push this out a week?

Tess: Suggestion that this should be merged into Digital Goods API design review. Not sure what I think about that.

Tess: The change to this spec can be motivated by some other spec. Feel like it needs to stand on its own merits.

Tess: Figure out course of conversation prior to that -- confusion about pending totals versus optional totals. Different use cases.

David: Is part of our design review process judging whether things are useful? Other than that, it's pretty independent, but that could be big...

Tess: I like the idea of closing one rather than keeping 2 reviews open indefinitely. But still an open discussion I want to drive to some sort of conclusion. I think that's on me; need to go through comments after my last comment.

(does Digital Goods API review even exist?)

Tess: Push a week or two, give time to both follow up on above and time for them to file Digital Goods API

Tess: Last time we talked about this, we were asked to wait for the TAG review of the digital goods API, so we can skip this for now

Dependency on digital goods, asked if Tess has issues with the feature

Ken: [leaving comment] depending on @hober

set to propose close