09:48:57 RRSAgent has joined #wot-arch 09:48:57 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/11/18-wot-arch-irc 09:52:38 meeting: WoT Architecture 09:52:47 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan 10:00:57 mlagally has joined #wot-arch 10:03:37 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi, Kunihiko_Toumura 10:03:59 ktoumura has joined #wot-arch 10:05:41 cris has joined #wot-arch 10:05:56 present+ Ben_Francis 10:07:41 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Nov_25th.2C_2021 10:07:48 s/25/18/ 10:08:32 topic: agenda 10:08:55 ml: first item spec alligment 10:09:08 ... I labeled publication blockers 10:09:10 Mizushima has joined #wot-arch 10:09:11 i|first|-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Nov_18th.2C_2021 Agenda| 10:09:21 i|first|scribenick: cris| 10:09:32 ... a spec alligment issue is also a blocker 10:09:45 ... we have a PR from Ege, I left a review 10:09:54 ege: still need to check the review points 10:10:06 present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch 10:10:29 ml: after this first section we have profile section, where we'll discuss publication blockers as well 10:10:56 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 10:11:16 ... removing clarification of the document structure from the agenda 10:11:35 s/removing// 10:11:49 rrsagent, make log public 10:11:52 rrsagent, draft minute 10:11:52 I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft minute', kaz. Try /msg RRSAgent help 10:11:54 s/from the agenda// 10:11:59 s/rrsagent, draft minute// 10:12:01 rrsagent, draft minutes 10:12:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/18-wot-arch-minutes.html kaz 10:12:41 chair: Lagally 10:12:43 ml: we also need to find a permanent time slot for arch call 10:12:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 10:12:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/18-wot-arch-minutes.html kaz 10:12:48 ... aob? 10:12:51 q? 10:12:59 ... none 10:13:32 topic: previous minutes 10:13:51 -> https://www.w3.org/2021/11/11-wot-arch-minutes.html Nov-11 10:15:25 https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/wg-2021-extension-plan/charters/wg-2021-extension-plan.md 10:15:27 ml: there's a problem with the resolution link 10:15:43 kaz: updated link above 10:16:51 s/updated/correct/ 10:17:25 s/above/above. The URL within the minutes has a "." at the end of the URL, so didn't work. Just fixed it./ 10:18:17 q? 10:18:50 ml: last time we pinpointed a conflict with the TD, I'm marking the canonicalization as a publication blocker 10:18:50 rrsagent, draft minutes 10:18:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/18-wot-arch-minutes.html kaz 10:19:28 present+ Michael_Lagally 10:19:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 10:19:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/18-wot-arch-minutes.html kaz 10:19:54 Discovery PR https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/121 10:19:55 ml: we discussed also about the necessity to have a discovery section 10:20:16 ... in the core profile 10:20:34 ben: I shared the link to a PR that fix the issue 10:22:20 ml: do we have time to discuss about discovery issues? 10:22:32 cris: I'm ok giving a shot 10:23:00 q+ 10:23:06 ml: there were few issues on the minutes, anything else? 10:23:43 kaz: the title of Add identifier section it's ok 10:23:55 ... we changed the topic while we were discussing about it 10:24:09 ben: no we didn't actually discussed that section 10:24:29 kaz: ok, I'll update the minutes 10:25:22 ... fixing 10:26:13 ml: fixed thank you 10:26:20 ... anything else? 10:26:29 ... can we approved it? 10:26:46 ben: discovery PR link is wrong 10:26:54 kaz: it is correct 10:28:16 (minutes approved) 10:28:19 topic: publication blockers 10:28:21 topic: Spec Alignment and Publication Blockers 10:28:26 s/topic: Spec Alignment and Publication Blockers// 10:28:54 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22blocks+publication%22 Pub blocker issues 10:29:17 q+ 10:29:25 ack k 10:29:33 ml: we have a good list let's go through them one by one 10:30:14 q+ 10:30:36 ege: for me really all of these assertions regard the TD. What should we do? remove/re-phrase/move to TD spec ? 10:30:39 q+ 10:30:48 ack e 10:31:27 ben: +1 10:31:44 ... I prefer to move to TD spec 10:32:06 ... too many cross-dependencies 10:32:12 ... it is diff 10:32:26 s/diff/difficult to keep everything in sync/ 10:32:55 ml: there's the editor-call to keep consistency among different normative and non-normative documents 10:32:59 q? 10:33:06 ack b 10:33:20 seb: +1 10:33:37 q+ 10:33:43 ack s 10:33:46 ... I was even surprised to see those assertions in the arch spec 10:34:00 ... it is chance to avoid confusion 10:34:31 ... the TD document should include all the relevant assertions/requirements 10:34:53 ... in the TD we did the same, we remove definitions and terminology section 10:36:07 ... I would like to have all the assertions relative to the TD in the TD document 10:36:12 ml: I agree 10:36:43 cris: +1 also from my side :) 10:37:06 ml: ok then we just need to identify them 10:37:11 q? 10:37:14 ... ege did a first pass 10:37:35 ege: for the record I only opened issue for assertions that I don't agree with but there might be others 10:37:49 ml: maybe somebody else can have another pass 10:38:06 ... just to have another view angle 10:38:06 q? 10:38:06 q? 10:38:50 kaz: thank you for having this discussion. be careful about the term assertion 10:39:12 ... we should focus on normative assertions 10:39:34 ml: agree let's focus specifically on RFC 2119 assertions 10:39:51 kaz: we should consider also sections not only assertions 10:40:13 ... we should look for duplicates and remove them 10:40:43 ml: ok I would see this a second phase 10:42:02 kaz: I would have started from sections but it is ok 10:42:18 ... in the end we'll have to think about section structure 10:43:12 ml: changes in big text blocks are more difficult to discuss 10:43:20 kaz: true 10:44:34 ege: it was easy to review assertions 10:44:40 ... it took me about an hour 10:45:01 ... I agree with kaz that some sections can be just moved 10:45:22 ... we don't really need to discuss single assertions there 10:45:35 ... but I agree that it might take more to reach a consensus 10:46:07 kaz: we might define "group issues" with links to the assertion issues 10:46:55 ml: we already have a good working plan... I'm concerned that moving section it would take long 10:47:03 s/long/longer/ 10:49:49 kaz: I think what I've been asking you all during the Editors calls is exactly what we're discussing now. So would like to record the strategy here on the minutes as well. 10:49:51 I have to go to another meeting for 30-45min 10:50:05 i/think/scribenick: kaz/ 10:50:09 scribenick: cris 10:50:27 ml: do we agree with the strategy? 10:51:27 Proposal: For all RFC2119 assertions that were identified contentious the process describe in https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/641 will be applied. 10:52:07 Proposal: For all RFC2119 assertions that were identified contentious in the architecture specification, the process describe in https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/641 will be applied. 10:55:31 q+ 10:55:37 ack k 10:55:58 Proposal: For all RFC2119 assertions that were identified contentious in the architecture specification, the process describe in https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/641#issuecomment-972755483 will be applied. 10:56:07 q? 10:56:34 ack b 10:57:39 ben: the consensus it seems that all the normative assertions should be moved to TD, but the resolution only refers to Ege's assertion 10:58:03 ml: right first let's first tackle the first ones 10:58:11 Proposal: For all RFC2119 assertions that were identified contentious in the architecture specification, the process described in https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/641#issuecomment-972755483 will be applied. 10:58:21 ... I'm not sure there's consensus about ALL the td assertions 10:58:37 Resolution: For all RFC2119 assertions that were identified contentious in the architecture specification, the process described in https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/641#issuecomment-972755483 will be applied. 10:58:41 s/... I/ml: I/ 10:59:33 ml: about all the assertions we need a person to work on it 10:59:44 ... reviewing and giving a list 11:00:10 ml: about consensus on this, yeah it is seems that we got to this point 11:01:30 scribenick: kaz 11:02:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:02:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/18-wot-arch-minutes.html kaz 11:03:47 ml: Owners of the issues, please take a look 11:04:19 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/labels/blocks%20publication Publication blocker issues 11:04:29 subtopic: Issue 642 11:04:51 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/642 Issue 642 - Identify normative RFC2119 assertions that affect the TD specification 11:05:00 ml: would like to assign this to Sebastian 11:05:27 ... any volunteers for the other issues? 11:05:42 ... to review those issues by the next call 11:06:39 q+ 11:07:26 ack k 11:07:46 kaz: should we assign somebody to each issue, shouldn't we? 11:08:41 ml: For example, Toumura-san, can you take Issue 641? 11:08:45 tou: sure 11:08:54 q+ 11:09:01 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/641 Issue 641 11:09:15 ack b 11:09:50 ben: what is expected is categorizing each issue into the three categories? 11:10:06 ml: yes 11:10:54 q+ 11:12:50 ack k 11:17:13 ben: have already done some review 11:17:26 kaz: could you remind us of the URL? 11:17:30 ben: Issue 625 11:17:42 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/625 Issue 625 11:18:11 topic: Profile 11:18:37 ml: would move forward to Profile and discuss the detail for Architecture offline 11:19:08 subtopic: Publication blockers 11:19:17 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22blocks+publication%22 Publication blocker issues 11:23:05 q+ 11:24:26 ack k 11:25:21 kaz: maybe we can review those issues during this call rather than assigning another reviewer, can't we? 11:25:27 ml: that's possible 11:25:48 ben: and we should start with older issues to see reviews already made 11:26:21 q+ 11:26:23 ml: ok 11:26:50 ... let's discuss the spec structure PRs next 11:27:08 subtopic: Profile spec structure 11:27:28 q? 11:27:58 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/129 PR 129 - Introduction to use cases for profiles 11:28:04 ack b 11:28:14 ben: we discussed this PR last week 11:29:05 ... use case description to be moved to the Use Cased document 11:29:55 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/130 PR 130 - Add Use cases section 11:30:05 (related PR above) 11:31:39 -> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-profile/130/d51d816...47508a1.html#profile-use-cases Use cases section 11:31:47 ben: not really agree to the text 11:32:00 ... maybe would be better to just add a link to the Use Cases document 11:32:13 ml: that's also fine 11:33:04 q+ 11:33:40 ben: agree those use cases themselves are important, but no other normative WoT specs have a Use Cases section 11:36:23 kaz: thought it would suffice if we put a brief description on the rationale for WoT Profile within Introduction or Why Profile section with a link to the Use Case document 11:37:01 ack k 11:37:07 q+ 11:37:47 https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-profile/130/d51d816...47508a1.html#profile-use-cases 11:40:46 q+ 11:41:01 kaz: the purpose of section "4. Use Cases and Requirements" is explaining the reason why we need a profile for WoT 11:41:09 ml: right 11:41:41 kaz: in that case, we can move the content to "1.2 Why a Core Profile ?" 11:41:45 ml: possible 11:41:55 kaz: then we can improve the text accordingly 11:41:58 ben: can help 11:42:52 i/then/ben: agree we move the content to section 1 11:43:43 s/improve/move the content to section 1.2 and/ 11:46:28 sk: btw, we're concentrating on HTTP for the Core Profile, so would be misleading to say "Cross Protocol Interworking" here (currently section "4.2") 11:46:53 q+ 11:47:08 ack k 11:47:09 ack s 11:47:31 kaz: would suggest we move the content to section 1.2 first 11:47:53 ... and then think about that part "4.2 Cross Protocol Interworking" next week given the time for today 11:48:16 ben: would agree it would be confusing to mention "Cross Protocol Interworking" here 11:48:21 ml: ok 11:48:30 ... let's talk about that point next week 11:49:29 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/125 PR 125 - Remove WoT Core Data Model and update Core Profile introduction - closes #10 11:49:50 ben: split my older big PR into small pieces, and this is one of them 11:50:09 ... maybe better to talk about the other ones first 11:50:20 ... but could talk about this to discuss the common issue 11:51:08 s/... but could talk about this to discuss the common issue/... would be better to start with the one on "common constraints"/ 11:51:50 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/131 PR 125 - initial draft of a "common constraints" section 11:52:17 q+ 11:52:38 ml: common constraints across protocols here 11:53:01 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/131#issuecomment-970081633 Lagally's comment including several examples of common constraints 11:53:25 bf: responded to that point 11:53:56 ... the core profile is the only one we're defining 11:54:12 ...so we're not sure about the other possible profiles 11:54:29 ml: understood 11:55:59 q? 11:56:09 ack b 11:56:11 ack s 11:56:21 ben: using consistent format is important 11:56:35 ml: so should make it generic 11:57:07 sk: time format should be human readable 11:57:13 s/time/for example, time/ 11:57:26 ben: but human readability is not requirement for the spec 11:57:51 q? 11:57:52 q+ 11:57:59 q+ 11:58:31 ... anyway, it's too early for us to define "Common Constraints" given we only have one profile 11:59:34 ... the reference is also a bit problematic 11:59:51 q? 12:01:13 ml: would like to review your recent comments again 12:05:55 q+ 12:08:11 kaz: tend to agree with Ben about saying "Common Constraints" right before the definition of "WoT Core Profile" would be confusing 12:08:32 ... maybe we could explain the constraints within the "WoT Core Profile" section instead? 12:08:59 ml: the intention of "Common Constraints" is possible common constraints among possible profiles 12:09:34 kaz: in that case, maybe we could call it "Basic Constraints" or something, given we only have the Core Profile at the moment 12:09:56 ml: can live with that 12:10:49 ... can add some clarification as well 12:11:02 ack b 12:11:05 Proposed way forward for data model https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/125#issuecomment-966589941 12:11:06 ack k 12:11:09 ack s 12:11:24 ben: would move forward for the data model 12:11:33 ... please see the comment above 12:13:12 ... think it would prevent us from working on multiple profiles 12:13:32 sk: what about IPv4 vs IPv6? 12:14:33 ml: define a set of rules on how multiple forms are to be handled by the Consumers? 12:14:51 bf: think that should be done during the next Charter period 12:16:08 s/think/that's about the Thing Description spec, but that/ 12:16:38 ml: let me review your comments on PR 125 12:16:57 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/125#issuecomment-966589941 Ben's latest comments for PR 125 12:17:22 topic: Next call 12:17:28 kaz: when to have the next call? 12:17:39 ml: need to have another doodle poll to find a slot 12:18:43 ... basically, this slot or not 12:19:16 [adjourned] 12:19:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:19:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/18-wot-arch-minutes.html kaz 14:30:13 Zakim has left #wot-arch 15:10:20 ryuichi has joined #wot-arch