– DRAFT –
WoT Architecture

minutes review sept 29 2022

Lagally: any objections to publish?
… none, will be published

<mlagally> @Kaz, please publish https://www.w3.org/2022/09/29-wot-arch-minutes.html

discussion

Sebastian: if deferring profile to next charter, should we use profile slot for architecture?

Lagally: good idea, let's talk about that later in the schedule

CR Publication

Lagally: need to look at open issues

Issue 828

Lagally: cleanup for publication

McCool: doubt there are any big issues since already cleaned up

<sebastian> brb

McCool: already been done in publication/ver11/3-cr, but may want to update it
… but all issues from html tidy, link checker, and pubrules were resolved already
… can do a sanity check but don't expect any new problems

Issue 817

McCool: redundant/unnecessary assertions - suggest we do as part of the implementation report review
… e.g. we can see if any particular at-risk assertion is necessary

<sebastian> back

McCool: although most of the current at-risk assertions are in security and privacy, and those have been reviewed for redundancy and cleaned up
… so I think we should close this issue and consider the review done
… no response to request for mtg with TAG, unfortunately
… anyway, we probably need a new issue to "document at-risk items" which would add a para to the sotd and at the start of the at-risk sections, which are security and privacy, basically (which we can't delete, so this statement has to say something about reversion to informative statements)
… however, it seems there are only a couple of assertions outside of S&P that are at-risk right now

Issue 816

McCool: this is for redundant assertions; the one called out in S&P was fixed, we reviewed and did not find others

Lagally: follow up issues 852 and 851

issue 815

Lagally: issue of document being long

McCool: not sure we have time for large changes

McCool: do feel it is editorial, and also the text is about use cases etc. which in the same issue is described as being needed

Lagally: (comments on issue)
… will revisit this during the next Charter period, so will keep this open

Issue 814

McCool: hard to answer what fraction of existing devices are compatible
… also there is an issue of anecdotal ecosystem discussion becoming obsolete
… so better to discuss in the explainer in my opinion

Sebastian: plugfest also has evidence, we for example have tested several commercial devices

McCool: those are still point tests, still hard to get a broad view

<sebastian> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Discovery_Categories_and_Tech_Landscape

<sebastian> http://w3c.github.io/wot/tech-landscape/

schedule

Lagally: seb's suggestion for profile, suggest a combined

McCool: would be better to focus on arch in the short term, people may be more inclined to join if they know the mtg will be focused
… once arch is in the can, then we can look again at profile

<mlagally> proposal: pause the profile work for the next 4 weeks, and after architecture CR has been done, we use both call slots for profile.

Sebastian: so agree that we should temporarily pause profile until arch is in CR

<mlagally> proposal: temporarily pause the profile work for the next 4 weeks, and after architecture CR has been done, we use both call slots for profile.

<mlagally> proposal: temporarily pause the profile work until the CR has been done. After that we use both call slots for profile.

RESOLUTION: temporarily pause the profile work until the CR has been done. After that we use both call slots for profile.

<ktoumura> [adjourned]

<mlagally> thanks!!!