Meeting minutes
Agenda
Lagally: 2 topics for today
… next week agenda is also available
… we don't a lot of time
… (goes through the agenda)
Ben: question about timeline
Lagally: consensus we won't make any normative changes after mid Nov
Ben: ok
… don't think WoT Profile is stable enough...
Lagally: in that case, we should clarify the main concerns
… and bring them to the Editors call and the Chairs
Ege: would like to talk about assertion review issue
Lagally: anything else?
(none)
Minutes
(approved)
<mlagally> https://
Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
… anything needs to be changed?
… can approve the Arch/Profile sections?
(no objections)
(approved)
Architecture
PR 615
Address Binding Templates related issues #615
Ege: for alignment with the Binding Templates doc
… the text on security should be put under section 8
… don't want the Arch spec to have the security detail for Binding
Lagally: where should it be described then?
Ege: think should be included in the Binding Templates doc
… not the Binding Templates section of the Architecture spec
… note that the Binding Templates document is about not only Protocol Binding but Binding in general
Lagally: would be fine to move the description itself
… but would like to check with McCool
Kaz: think this PR is too big
… would be better to split this into 3-4 smaller PRs for easier review
Lagally: agree smaller PRs are better
… but can still review this PR 615
… we need some more time for review and need to conclude next week, though
Kaz: ok
Lagally: once we get McCool's feedback for the security part, I'll be OK
PR 631
precedence rule for terminology #631
Lagally: terminology
[[
In case of a conflict of a definition with terminology used in another WoT document, the definition of the WoT Architecture takes precedence.
]]
Kaz: fine
… but we need to check the inconsistency among specs
Ben: don't think adding this note would be really good
… should check the inconsistency among specs
Lagally: we'll definitely check the inconsistency
(with the condition, we'll merge the PR)
(merged)
PR 624
preparing implementation report #624
Lagally: implementation report preparation
Kaz: is this a different tool to extract assertions from McCool's one?
Lagally: copied the tool for Discovery
Kaz: so the same one?
… probably the same tool
… but should ask McCool for clarification about where to put the resulted CSV and the format of the CSV file
… we can merge this PR itself and then check with McCool later, though
Lagally: would merge this PR itself
(merged)
Issue 625
Ege: some of the assertions are not really correct
… mis-alignment with TD
Lagally: a couple of normative portions included here
Lagally: need more time to look into this issue
… would suggest we handle this offline
Ben: a couple of points
… Mozilla made a Formal Objection to make the Architecture document a normative spec
… all the normative portions should be defined by the other specs like TD
… these normative assertions would cause confusion
Ege: agree
… still mis-alignment with the other specs
Lagally: ok
… anyway I need more time for review
Kaz: agree consistency among specs is very important
… that's why I'm asking all the Editors to check the consistency among specs
… and see which description to be included in which spec
… some of the assertions here might to to another spec
… also again, I'd suggest we split this issue 625 into several smaller issues about Architecture and TD, Architecture and Discovery, Architecture and Binding Tempaltes, etc.
Ege: agree
Lagally: would like to ping the related Editors here (McCool, Sebastian, Ryuichi, Ege and Lagally)
… and have discussion during the Editors call next week as well
Profile
Lagally: also another issue on the timeline for Profile
… would think about that as well
… (creates Issue 110)
Ben: was concerned about the updated timeline
Kaz: we need to clarify what we want and what we can do during this Charter period
… and then think about how to deal with them
… and then think about how/when to publish the spec document for this Charter period
Lagally: would like to send an email about this problem
AOB
mizushima: wondering about the results of the doodle on the possible next slot
Kaz: no good slot in the end...
Ege: will be more flexible
Ben: any chance to make the meeting one hour?
… or splitting the call into two separate calls, one for Architecture and another for Profile
Lagally: let me think
Kaz: what about the next call?
… on Nov. 11 right?
Lagally: yes
Kaz: one hour or two hours?
Lagally: next call on Nov 11 will be two hours
… may need to shorten the call to one hour on Nov. 18, though.
[adjourned]