Meeting minutes
minutes
https://
any objections?
Ege: no clear names so far
Kaz: done
approved
Plugfest results
Lagally: there where two implementations running
… there were some problems
… using Postman to interact with the server works well
… however, this was not a full test
<ML shows the implementation report; only available local>
Ege: Postman is not a real consumer implementation. Was there a real Consumer implementation?
<Ege> ack
Lagally: question what is understood by a Consumer implementation? WebUI? In that context I would say that we have it.
Ege: I would object this since a consumer should parse and interpret TDs
<kaz> rragent, draft minutes
McCool: We should clarify the requirements.
<ML shows some assertations that can be seen as consumer requirements>
Lagally: 2 companies provided manuel assertions results
… SSE is only implmented by Ben
… WebHooks only by Oracle
Lagally: A problem which I have identified is that the payload structure is not well defined.
McCool: Is it only a Profile issue or a TD issue?
Lagally: Profile only specify that
Lagally: Last week we discussed if existing implementations already Profile compliant
… we stop this since some implementations are not compliant
Lagally: can implementer go over the manual assertions to check if they have implented the features?
McCool: Async actions should be defined as at-risk
Lagally: I mentioned last week that Profile is not mature enough for go REC. We need 1-2 month more
McCool: ok
<ML setup a new issue about payload format>
https://
Ege: I do not understand the problem
Lagally: how to define and pass properties, or how to write and read them
Ege: I think, this is well defined in TD spec. I think you asking about static message wrapper
Ege: In TD playground you can create a OpenAPI document and pass it to Postman
Ege: A consumer should parse TDs and interact what is defined in there
Lagally: I do not think we need a generic consumer implementation, its not a requirement
Ege: if we not show this than we have not the benefit of the Profile anymore
Kaz: Some of the unimplemented assertions were covered by the other specs like TD, so we should consider how to reuse them. Also we need to clearify policy and what should be tested.
Lagally: Agree
McCool: In main call I would do resolution that the Profile should be defered to the new Charter.
<Ege> ack +
McCool: Playground and Postman should be considered as consumer. However, we should write up policy about this
… next charter, I like to improve our testing
Lagally: I'm ok to postpone Profile, however, we should not stop working on this.
McCool: we can pause until PRs are publised
Lagally: can we continue to work in draft status in this charter?
Kaz: I need to check with PLH.
McCool: Suggest to run it as IG activity
Kaz: We do not need to transfer the work to the IG just to make it a group Note.
McCool: Let's not switch the group. Should not complicated things. Simple continue in new charter and publish asap.
Kaz: if we as the WoT WG as a whole would like to hold on and stop the spec work for WoT Profile, that's possible. However, we should clarify what wanted to achieve by the Profile specification as the basis of the next WG Charter discussion.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to +
<Zakim> Ege, you wanted to react to +
Lagally: I don't want open new additional requirements and I don't want to start a new loop
<Zakim> Ege, you wanted to react to kaz
Lagally: Let's simply publish Profile as draft in this charter and as REC in new charter
Ege: Using Postman not work in many cases such as for async actions since this needs interactions of the consumer
Lagally: we should postpone this discussion
DP: I provided manuel csv file but it seems the wrong place. Hard for implementer to provide manuel csv in the right place
… Profile is also not reflected by the Scriptiong API
McCool: I try to clean-up testreport
<mlagally> proposal: publish an updated WD by the end of the current WG charter. Carry over the profile goals and deliverables to the next WG charter. Deliver the Profile early in the next WG charter period with the current scope and requirements.
Lagally: objections?
Kaz: Proposal looks OK but we should clearifiy what we want to do for Profile during the next Charter period within the Charter document even clearer.
Mizushima: ok with the proposal
RESOLUTION: publish an updated WD by the end of the current WG charter. Carry over the profile goals and deliverables to the next WG charter. Deliver the Profile early in the next WG charter period with the current scope and requirements.
Mizushima: but Im confused about the scope for next charter.
Lagally: let's discuss this in the main call
adjourn