W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Architecture

29 September 2022

Attendees

Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Lagally
Chair
McCool
Scribe
sebastian

Meeting minutes

test report

PR 848

McCool: I just finish a PR which we can review

PR 848 - Update Implementation Report Oct 2022

<kaz> draft implementation report on "oct-2022-impl-rep-update" branch

<MM shows the result of the implementation report>

Report includes the results of node-wot

wot-testing PR 405

<kaz> PR 405 - add manual.csv for node-wot

McCool: the node-wot results look very conservative, I think more is possible with node-wot

<MM provide a comment in the PR from Daniel>

wot-testing PR 404

McCool: there is a PR from Toumura-san

wot-testing PR 404 - first reports for architecture assertions

McCool: going to merge it

wot-testing PR 374

McCool: there is a PR from TUM

wot-testing PR 374 - TUM manual.csv

Sebastian: Is this PR for Architecture?

<Sebastian guess its only for TD>

<MM generates new report based on the new PRs>

McCool: test results looks much better now. We have 4 implementations so far.

McCool: we have still 21 assertations with no implementations

<MM provides the new report to the Arch repo>

Minutes (2022-09-22)

Sep-22

McCool: I'm ok with the minutes
… objections?

no

Issues

McCool: there are two new issues

Update dates and further cleanup in Implementation report - Issue 846

<kaz> Issue 846 - Update dates and further cleanup in Implementation report

McCool: I can work on this

<MM assigns itself to the issue>

Update Security Link - Issue 841

<kaz> Issue 841 - Update Security Link

Sebastian: I worked on that, see https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/847

TAG-based issues

https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Atag-needs-resolution

McCool: some issues addresses the use case section. Maybe we should simply remove it since its only informative

Sebastian: On the other hand, we had this section already in the 1.0 version

Kaz: Given we still have five remaining issues on TAG's reviews, probably we should consider to invite them to our calls to have discussion. If we can resolve all issues quickly, that's fine, though.

<MM writes an email to Amy and Daniel of the TAG team and ask to join one of the next Arch call, if possible>

Other issues

<MM checks other issues such as labeld "by CR transition">

McCool: we should also add "by CR transition" to the TAG issues
… I will do this

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).