Meeting minutes
Minutes
Lagally: call notes from yesterday (covering arch topics) and last week
Lagally: minutes from 27 Oct 2022
Kaz: already reviewed, so do not have to do it again
Lagally: ok, let's look at Nov 2 minutes
Lagally: no objections? ...
... let's publish
Contributions
PR 872 and related issue
PR 872 - Update CR and Norm/Inf for section 7
Kaz: clarification question
… this PR 872 makes (1) most of the section 7 non-normative and (2) 7.4 WoT Discovery and 7.5 WoT Binding Templates normative
… is that correct?
McCool: right
Kaz: 7.4 may be OK
… but 7.5 is about WoT Binding Templates
… does that section really include normative assertions?
McCool: yes
… not one but many assertions included there
Sebastian: think we should make the section "7.5 WoT Binding Templates" non-normative
Ege: +1
Kaz: +1
<sebastian> +1
McCool: I'm OK with that direction
… note that the section "7.4 WoT Discovery" could be also non-normative since we can remove the assertions within that section
… the necessary assertions for WoT Discovery are defined by the "WoT Discovery" specification already
Sebastian: would agree with McCool
… making the whole section "7 WoT Building Blocks" would make the situation easier
… and give readers less confusions
Kaz: I'm OK with making "7.4 WoT Discovery" as well non-normative
… and making the whole section "7 WoT Building Blocks" also non-normative
… another question might be whether we want to say "WoT Runtime MUST support WoT Thing Description.", etc., at the beginning of the section "7 WoT Building Blocks"
McCool: need to see the section 7 carefully
… also wondering if it's OK if I update section 7.5 WoT Binding Templates
Ege: that's fine
McCool: I can work on a new Pullrequest then
<mlagally> proposal: McCool creates a single PR that makes all RFC2119 assertions in chapter 7 (7.4 and 7.5) informative text. Arch TF approves the PR via email within 24 hours. WG is requested to approve CR transition by email until Wednesday noon next week.
Ege: please remember you need to update the test results for the Implementation Report
McCool: will handle that too
<mlagally> proposal: McCool creates a single PR that makes all RFC2119 assertions in chapter 7 (7.4 and 7.5) informative text. Arch TF approves the PR via email within 24 hours, i.e. if there's no objection the PR will be merged. Likewise the WoT WG is requested to approve CR transition by email until Wednesday noon next week.
<sebastian> +1
RESOLUTION: McCool creates a single PR that makes all RFC2119 assertions in chapter 7 (7.4 and 7.5) informative text. Arch TF approves the PR via email within 24 hours, i.e. if there's no objection the PR will be merged. Likewise the WoT WG is requested to approve CR transition by email until Wednesday noon next week.
profile
<kaz> i/call notes fro yesterday/scribenick: McCool/
<mlagally> https://
Lagally: would like to switch over now and look at pending pull requests, several of which have already been approved
PR 293
<kaz> PR 293 - Allow security metadata on Forms - closes #292/
Lagally: previously security was only allowed at top level, this removes that, and allows them on forms
… this allows more sensitive affordances to have additional security
… any objections?
… none, merged
PR 294
<kaz> PR 294 - Make security bootstrapping mandatory - closes #250/
Lagally: this makes security bootstrapping mandatory
<kaz> diff - 6.3 Security
McCool: I am ok with these, but note that this only applies to discovery
… if we want security bootstrapping everywhere, we have to allow the "auto" security scheme
… I suggest we create an issue for the auto security scheme, otherwise I am ok with this PR
Lagally: creates issue #313 for auto scheme, assigns mmccool
ege: was there not another Pr revising the list of security schemes?
Lagally: looks like a merge conflict, PR still has the old list of security schemes
… let's try to fix
… no, it looks like the conflict was with the other PR that removed restriction to top level
… (fixes)
… (checks diff)
… old security schemes still in diff, but let's merge and see if it still needs fixing after
McCool: I will remove them when I do my PR if necessary.
PR 297
<kaz> PR 297 - Revised Abstract and Introduction - fixes #115 and fixes #190
Lagally: this is moving content out into a requirements document
… but it also makes a lot of other changes
seb: however, I do think over all it is a big improvement
… it makes the exposition much more straightforward
… I think that very detailed explanations, motivations, etc. can go into an explainer
Lagally: (makes notes on PR)
Lagally: we don't have an explainer yet...
McCool: but will need one soon
Lagally: (see notes on PR)
seb: a simple example at the very beginning would also be helpful, and it more interesting than 5-6 pages of justification; I can support and provide an example
Lagally: suggest that we split into multiple PRs, one for requirements, one for explainer, one for improved intro
… will ask ben to restructure
… please do say that sebastian was quite in favor of the change, we just want to organize it better
Kaz: agree that smaller topic-by-topic PR is better
… one more point - might want to have a requirements document and consolidated explainer
… for all of WoT, not just profiles
McCool: please bring that up when we do the next charter
PR 311
<kaz> PR 311 - Oct Testfest - summary table
Lagally: adds summary of assertions
McCool: ok with merging, but yes, I do plan to update the IR shortly
Lagally: merges this Pr
<kaz> [adjourned]