Meeting minutes
Minutes
approved
Schedule
McCool: fyi, TD decision for CR has been deferred till Aug-3 to wait for the feedback from the next Testfest
Lagally: who to do what for Architecture?
McCool: mainly manual checks
… we need two different implementations
… node-wot and something
… we've delayed the next Testfest to July 25-29
… actual CR transition resolution to be made on Aug 3
Lagally: sounds good
McCool: note that Toumura-san is proposing we highlight the features at-risk
Lagally: ok
… we can update the schedule
McCool: can do that
Lagally: Test 3 to be held...
McCool: July 25-29
Lagally: CR transition one week earlier than TPAC?
McCool: yeah
… TPAC discussion should concentrate on the next Charter
Lagally: TPAC 2022 on September 12-16
McCool: but kind of doubt much participation in person
… should consider remote/hybrid Plugfest
… August 3 we should make resolution for CR for Architecture, TD and Discovery
… and next week for Profile
Lagally: expectation for Profile?
McCool: a month from now to see the actual Profile
McCool: assuming we'll finish Profile work in one month
Kaz: concrete date for the plan?
McCool: August 31 as the current plan says
(CR candidate on July 30; CR transition on August 31)
PRs
PR 779
merged
PR 780
PR 780 - Generate static HTML file for CR publication
Kaz: the next publication will be a "WD", so the directory for the publication preparation should be "2-wd" or something like. right?
McCool: right
tou: will change the directory name
McCool: we could merge the PR itself and Toumura-san can change the name later
… no highlight in this draft for publication
Lagally: Toumura-san, are you ready for being merged yourself?
… need another path before merging?
McCool: we can review the detail later
… review and discussion by email
… would be easier to handle the draft for review and tooling if this is merged
Lagally: ok
… Toumura-san, what do you want?
… another look by the end of this week, maybe?
Kaz: I'm also OK with merging this PR itself if Toumura-san prefers doing so
… we can create another PR to fix the directory name
Lagally: how to deal with this then?
McCool: think we should merge this after the other PRs
Kaz: in that case, let's review the other PRs/Issues
… and Toumura-san can work on further fixes for this PR
… and we can revisit this PR next week
PR 782
PR 782 - Discovery deliverable
McCool: additional access control
merged
PR 783
PR 783 - Specify TLS and DTLS versions
McCool: based on the discussion during the Security call
… TLS 1.3 is recommended
… don't mention the previous versions by concrete number
… e.g., 1.1
<span class="rfc2119-assertion"
id="arch-security-consideration-dtls-1-2">
If DTLS 1.3 cannot be used for compatibility reasons
but secure transport over UDP is appropriate,
MAY be used.</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion"
id="arch-security-consideration-no-earlier-tls-or-dtls">
Versions of DLTS or TLS earlier than 1.2 MUST NOT be used for
new development.
]]
McCool: 1.3 (or later) is recommended
Lagally: looks good
Kaz: it depends on the group's policy for dealing with TLS
… and I'm OK with this description
merged
PR 784
PR 784 - Intro text for the binding template section
McCool: "Binding Templates block addresses" should be "Binding Templates addresses"
Sebastian: right
Lagally: (fix it)
preview - 7.5 WoT Binding Templates
merged
PR 776
PR 776 - WIP: June 2022 Implementation Report Update
McCool: would like to show the latest status on my PC
Lagally: ok
McCool: (shows the HTML on his PC)
… the results are still all "0", though
… identified all the assertions
… let's include the atrisk.csv and template.csv as well
… (checks the status at "Files changed")
McCool: various changes including assertion names
merged
Issues
Publication blocker(s)
Lagally: Sebastian, could you give comments?
McCool: seems it's a high-level requirements
Note that many media types only identify a generic serialization format that does not provide further semantics for its elements (e.g., XML, JSON, CBOR). Thus, the corresponding Interaction Affordances SHOULD declare a data schema to provide more detailed syntactic metadata for the data exchanged.
Sebastian: it's kind of impossible to define schema for binary data
Kaz: tend to agree with Sebastian's point
… but I'm OK with the current text
… but we should clarify the detailed assertions are described by the Thing Description specification here again
Lagally: (summarizes the discussion)
… the Interaction Affordance for structured data types SHOULD be associate with a data schema to provide more detailed syntactic metadata for the data exchanged.
… details should be specified in the TD spec.
Issue 608
Issue 608 - Relationship between "8.7 Protocol Bindings" and "9.5 WoT Binding Templates"
Lagally: Sebastian will create a PR for some text
closed
Issue 766 - revisited
<mlagally> Proposal: approve merging the agreed text in issue #766 off-line.
RESOLUTION: approve merging the agreed text in issue #766 off-line.
[adjourned]