W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Profile

19 October 2022

Attendees

Present
Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Lagally
Scribe
Ege

Meeting minutes

Working Mode Proposal

Lagally: Ben has objected the initial proposal
… I have sent a proposal yesterday
… the previous resolution stopped the profile work and Ben proposed to continue asynchronously

McCool: let's have a new resolution, aligning with Ben's proposal

<mlagally> proposal: The main focus of the architecture TF for the next four weeks is to achieve CR status of the architecture spec, so the profile call slots are temporarily used for architecture. To ensure rapid progress of the Profile specification, the Profile work continues asynchronously on github / email, with on-demand discussion in the architecture calls, in case of any blocking issue.

Lagally: is the proposed text fine?

<kaz> Lagally's response to Ben

Lagally: arch has high precedence, unless a blocking issue is in profile

Ege: can we merge PRs or just allowing people to make pull requests and issues

Kaz: there is a bit of mix up here
… I am not sure if profile slot would help with arch discussion
… if you think it would help and accelarate so that we reach the REC in the charter, we should clarify the updated schedule for that purpose.
… that was the first issue
… and then the second issue is about the Profile spec. If we want to continue the spec work for Profile, we should simply continue the discussion using this Profile slot. Or if we really want to go for asynchronous discussion using only GitHub, we should clarify our policy on decision making beforehand.

McCool: I think we can edit the proposal to say we do not merge PRs

Lagally: I think we can adapt the call content to the amount of work in hand. Now we have 10 PRs, so we have work to do.

<mlagally> proposal: The main focus of the architecture TF for the next four weeks is to achieve CR status of the architecture spec, so the profile call slots are temporarily used for architecture. To ensure rapid progress of the Profile specification, the Profile work continues asynchronously on github / email, with on-demand discussion in the architecture calls, in case of any blocking issue.

Kaz: we should fix the schedule and policy before making the resolution

McCool: we can have resolution by saying "no PRs will be merged"

Lagally: Let's look at the schedule

Kaz: Sorry if my words sound severe but this proposed resolution asking for using four additional calls for Architecture sounds like "It aches much, so please give morphine." So I'd like clarification for the feasibility of the updated schedule.

Lagally: let's table this discussion, we can look into the profile and architecture this meeting

Lagally: we need these contributions to be merged

Kaz: we can revisit this in the arch call tomorrow

Lagally: we can have a discussion in the main call and resolution in the arch call

Ege: what happens to the previous resolution in this case? cancelled?

Lagally: I think it is cancelled since Ben was not in the meeting and there was no consensus, so we agreed to cancel the preious resolution.

Lagally: Any other opinion?

Lagally: Michael and Sebastian, can we update the schedule in the main call?

McCool: yes we will look into it

Minutes Review

<kaz> Oct-12

Lagally: Anything to change in the minutes?

Lagally: minutes are approved

Lagally: we can look into the other minutes tomorrow

PRs

PR 304

<kaz> PR 304 - Profile Implementation status after Oct. test+plugfest

Lagally: I have put the contributions together into one csv file
… so we have oracle and krellian
… so it is something like an implementation report

Sebastian: where is the node-wot results?

Lagally: I did not see any input but there was a discussion about it

Daniel: I did like ben, it is going into testing

Lagally: lots of places to input, we should fix it for the next plugfest

Daniel: we do not have eventing though

Lagally: we should merge PR 445 in testing repository

<kaz> wot-testing PR 445 - add initial Profile results for node-wot

PR 295

<kaz> PR 295 - Prepare Testfest/Plugfest - informative assertion markup - generate manual.csv

Daniel: I have seen PRs that change the manual csv so we should be clear

Lagally: yes it is correct, there was a suggestion to remove the event assertions but we are not doing it to see the full picture

Lagally: we should close this one since it is superseed by others

PR 296

<kaz> PR 296 - full list of assertions, including those for informative SSE and Webhook profiles

<kaz> (merged)

PR 301

<kaz> PR 301 -fixing subprotocol id

Lagally: let's merge this one

<kaz> (just editorial fix)

PR 303

<kaz> PR 303 - Add Ben Francis as Spec Co-Editor

Ege: We had a discussion on this in the td call and we lacked a policy

McCool: we will talk about this in the main call and have a resolution

Lagally: but can we merge it?

McCool: we can merge it but it would be better to have a resolution in the main call

Sebastian: we want to use the contributors list from github
… and also who participates in discussions

Kaz: I've just updated the PR with Ben's ID, but we should use "Invited Expert" as his affiliation. Regarding the policy for Editors, it would be nicer to make an explicit resolution during the main call based on what we've been doing as McCool and Sebastian mentioned.

Lagally: we are all agreeing to merge this PR

Lagally: congrats to ben

PR 305

<kaz> PR 305 - Remove unused security schemes

Lagally: digest and bearer were not implemented

Ege: I think there are still a lot of variation on this

McCool: I agree. We can start with a smaller set still

<kaz> Issue 221 - Security Schemes are too loose

Lagally: we can constrain further

Lagally: we can merge this one, I think we all agree

Architecture

PR 858

<kaz> wot-architecture PR 858 - Finalize IR and at-risk items

McCool: we have agreed to not have links in abstracts

McCool: I have run tidying tools on it as well and we see all implementation names

McCool: outside of privacy and security assertions, only 2 are at risk

Lagally: I would like to have more time to review

APA Questionnaire

<kaz> wot-architecture Issue 796 - Accessibility (APA) review

McCool: we did the APA questionnaire already, we should take the results

McCool: did we create an issue on their repo?

Lagally: let's see

<McCool_> a11y-request Issue 23 - Web of Things (WoT) Architecture 1.1 2022-04-03 > 2022-06-30

Lagally: adjourned

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