WoT-WG - TD-TF – 21 December 2022

Meeting minutes

Minutes

Dec-7

any objections?

minutes approved

Testfest results

Ege: please check the at-risk list

https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/main/testing/atrisk.csv

Ege: still some assertions where we need implementations

Kaz: we should clearify what is really problematic

DP: is it about the manuel or auto check?

Kaz: we should clearify why implementator have done and not done implementations

Sebastian: I understood that we should take care all yeallow highlighted assertions and ask implementators why they have trouble in implementaions

Kaz: we should have a table which shows which data came from. We can double check or ask the implementors

Sebastian: I think we already have very good results so far. Still time to have implementions for the remeaning assertations

Kaz: for TD that is true, but we should also consider Discovery and Architecture which has more missing assertions

Sebastian: lets check the results of Architecture

<kaz> latest Implementation for WoT Architecture as an example

<cris_> agree

<kaz> 31: arch-security-consideration-communication-platform

<Ege_> https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture#arch-security-consideration-communication-platform

Sebastian: most likely we have already more implemtations of the asserations. Each TD that was generated for a device have to fullfill the security requirements, otherwise you are not able to interact

Kaz: I don't think we're requiring people to implement device virtualization like VMware but do think using WoT Thing Description to describe device capability is already a kind of abstraction here

(all check some more assertions, and create an Issue for wot-architecture))

<Ege_> wot-architecture issue 888 - Evaluating At Risk Assertions

(Ege records the comments within the issue 888 above)

Kaz: let's check with Lagallly based on this comment tomorrow during the Architecture call

TD

PR 1758

<Ege_> PR 1758 - Updating at risk assertions in the main body

Ege: there is still OAuth2 code flow implementation needed

Binding Templates

PRs

PR 223 - Orphaned Section Reorg - Part 1: Protocols

Ege: split commits into meaningful sections

Kaz: thanks for your effort
… which would be easier, (1) this way (=putting the "orphaned sections" from the Appendix back to the main body of the current Editor's draft or (2) once revert to the published version of the Note, which includes all the "orphaned sections" already in it and then add necessary changes based on that.

Ege: I would prefer as is. It easer for readers

Sebastian: not sure if the term "orphaned" is appropriate here. Should this be used in a spec document?

Ege: can also say uncategorized or temprary sections

<Ege_> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/224

Ege: last time we also said that we should start working on a survey to get feedback from developers

Kaz: getting feedback is important for next WG, however, we should address more broader stakeholders
… we should think who we want to contact rather than which mailinglist we'd like to use
… for example, we should think about Echonet, Microsoft, etc in this discussion

Ege: are there other feedbacks?
… which tool should be used? From W3C?

Kaz: anything is fine
… if you can clarify the questions and the style, I can create W3C questionnaire

TD

Publication

Sebastian: we need a resolution about the ReSpec errors

https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/publication/ver11/5-cr/#toc

Sebastian: proposal is to use the "ignore" solution as given by ReSpec. Also agreed this in the chairs call

* Normative reference to "base direction" found but term is defined "informatively" in "i18n-glossary".

How to fix: You can do one of the following...

* Get the source definition to be made normative

* Add a class="lint-ignore" attribute to the link.

* Use a local normative proxy for the definition à la <dfn data-cite="spec">term</dfn>

To silence this warning entirely, set lint: { "informative-dfn": false } in your respecConfig.

Occurred 1 times at:

<a> element

* Normative reference to "first-strong detection" found but term is defined "informatively" in "i18n-glossary".

How to fix: You can do one of the following...

* Get the source definition to be made normative

* Add a class="lint-ignore" attribute to the link.

* Use a local normative proxy for the definition à la <dfn data-cite="spec">term</dfn>

To silence this warning entirely, set lint: { "informative-dfn": false } in your respecConfig.

Occurred 1 times at:

<a> element

* Normative reference to "base direction" found but term is defined "informatively" in "i18n-glossary".

How to fix: You can do one of the following...

* Get the source definition to be made normative

* Add a class="lint-ignore" attribute to the link.

* Use a local normative proxy for the definition à la <dfn data-cite="spec">term</dfn>

To silence this warning entirely, set lint: { "informative-dfn": false } in your respecConfig.

Occurred 1 times at:

<a> element

Kaz: we should fix index.html and index.template.html at wot-thing-description
... and index.html at wot-thing-description/publications/5-cr

Ege: I can help here by tomorrow.

Sebastian: we should do a resolution about our decision

Kaz: yes

<Ege_> proposal: In order to avoid ReSpec errors, the TF decided to add class="lint-ignore" to usage of "base direction" and "first-strong detection" definitions in the document

RESOLUTION: In order to avoid ReSpec errors, the TF decided to add class="lint-ignore" to usage of "base direction" and "first-strong detection" definitions in the document

<kaz> (Ege and Sebastian handle the files at wot-thing-description, Kaz will handle the files at wot-thing-description/publications/5-cr)

here is the 'reminder' issue