Meeting minutes
Agenda
McCool: I would focus on urgent topics
Sebastian: I agree with michael mccool
McCool: we have 3-4 PRs to handle
Kaz: If we want to use this "WoT Profile" call for the discussion on "WoT Architecture", we once need to see the updated schedule for the WoT Architecture spec first, and then make a resolution for reusing this slot for the Architecture discussion.
<sebastian> https://
McCool: For the interest of time, we can skip the minutes today
Lagally: I would prefer to do the review since they will be published
Kaz: regarding the WoT Profile topic itself, we should create a clear resolution about the WoT Profile work during the main call today, because we want to revert the previous resolution.
Minutes Review
Minutes of 19.10.2022
<kaz> Oct-19
Lagally: anything to be changed?
Lagally: we can publish
Minutes of 20.10.2022
Kaz: The minutes are not about the profile, we can review them tomorrow
Lagally: true, we can do it tomorrow
WoT Profile discussion
Lagally: no new issues except one and one new pr
Sebastian: now there are 3 profile implementations
Lagally: now the topic about going for REC
McCool: We can change the proposal to say 3 weeks now
Lagally: we should mainly do architecture topics
<mlagally> proposal: The main focus of the architecture TF for the next 1-2 weeks is to achieve CR status of the architecture spec, so the profile call slots are temporarily primarily 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: I'm OK with the proposal above itself, but we should quickly skim the updated publication schedule to see if it's really feasible for us to finalize the WoT Architecture spec if we use this WoT Profile call for the discussion on WoT Architecture, e.g., for 4 times.
<kaz> updated publication schedule
McCool: we need cr resolution this week
McCool: today basically
Lagally: what is the alternative?
McCool: there is a chance that we cannot get the extension, my AC rep would not support it
Lagally: what would that mean?
McCool: we cannot carry over CR to a next charter
McCool: we have some slack at the end of january but we need that to take into change requests into account
Lagally: in the worst case, we end up with another WD
McCool: no it would be a complete failure of the WG if that happens
McCool: we need to get these out of the door
<mlagally> proposal: The main focus of the architecture TF for the next 1-2 weeks is to achieve CR status of the architecture spec, so the profile call slots are temporarily primarily 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.
RESOLUTION: The main focus of the architecture TF for the next 1-2 weeks is to achieve CR status of the architecture spec, so the profile call slots are temporarily primarily 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.
WoT Architecture discussion
Remaining issues
Lagally: here are the ones to close
Lagally: there are none with close or defer label, none with close next week
Lagally: we have some housekeeping issues
Lagally: we have an issue about logilab+siemens tdd
Ege: Michael McCool should move the events folder input to the data inputs
Issue 864
<kaz> Issue 864 - arch-security-consideration-avoid-direct unclear
McCool: we can turn it into an informative statement
McCool: if we get implementations, we can add an informative explanation
PR 858
<kaz> PR 858 - Prep for CR, finalize IR and document at-risk items
<kaz> Preview of the spec
<kaz> Draft Implementation Report
Lagally: this is about the implementation report
Lagally: do we have a rendered version
McCool: we have 15 implementation descriptions
McCool: I have added a statement about using older inputs
McCool: we have decided months ago to use old inputs for compatability testing
Lagally: This makes sense for TD but not for arch
McCool: I can remove it, no problem
Lagally: about the contributor list
McCool: these are just implementation descriptions
Lagally: we have information about the contributing member in 80% of them, would be nice to have in all
Lagally: do you know who did the echonet implementation?
Kaz: we can check the details offline later
McCool: we can update it as soon as I have the information
Lagally: we need to show that enough companies are implementing it
McCool: for details, I would not ask implementers to say the usefullness of each feature, which are more than 400 in the TD
Sebastian: siemens has multiple implementations with different developer teams
Kaz: please remember that what is required for the CR stage is getting sufficient implementations based on the draft Implementation. So the Implementation Report doesn't have to be perfect at this stage. The more important is clarifying the "features at-risk" so that we clearly state them within the SoTD section of the CR draft.
Lagally: has the report change since last time
McCool: Not much, two assertions that are not about privacy and security are at risk
McCool: In case some assertions are not implemented, we can follow the instructions in the document
PR 855
McCool: there are PRs that can change the text, I will adapt my tool. If they are not critical, I think we can defer them to the CR period
<kaz> PR 855 - Clarify interaction affordance binding mechanisms
<kaz> Preview
Lagally: anyone have concerns
<sebastian> https://
Ege: allowing protocol bindings to happen via profiles is breaking the design
… it is not clear what a profile can be
McCool: I have a proposal in one of the profile
Daniel: I want to mention Sebastian's contribution, just saying that it is a set of assertions is too open
Lagally: I have a PR to add a definition
Lagally: also, a Thing is always with a TD
Kaz: We have to clarify whether we need to add (normative) changes to the specification text or not before moving the main call. If we need to, unfortunately, we once postpone the CR transition resolution for Architecture today, and should continue the discussion during the Architecture call tomorrow. After the finalization during the Architecture call tomorrow, we can make another resolution by email, etc., if needed.
Kaz: can we finish the PRs tomorrow?
Sebastian: if we focus on these, yes
Lagally: let's do it asynchronously
<kaz> [adjourned]