IRC log of wot-profile on 2023-03-01
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 12:02:52 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wot-profile
- 12:02:56 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/01-wot-profile-irc
- 12:02:58 [kaz]
- meeting: WoT Profile
- 12:03:06 [kaz]
- present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally
- 12:05:58 [Mizushima]
- Mizushima has joined #wot-profile
- 12:06:32 [McCool]
- McCool has joined #wot-profile
- 12:06:39 [mlagally_]
- mlagally_ has joined #wot-profile
- 12:07:27 [kaz]
- present+ Ege_Korkan, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima
- 12:08:48 [McCool]
- topic: Housekeeping
- 12:09:04 [ryuichi]
- ryuichi has joined #wot-profile
- 12:09:06 [McCool]
- ml: proposed agenda, note future agendas for looking at wide review feedback
- 12:09:22 [kaz]
- agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Profile_WebConf#Profile_-_March_1st.2C_2023
- 12:09:25 [McCool]
- ml: minutes from Feb 22, 2023
- 12:09:32 [kaz]
- -> https://www.w3.org/2023/02/22-wot-profile-minutes.html Feb-22
- 12:10:28 [McCool]
- ... any objections to approving the call notes?
- 12:10:33 [McCool]
- ... hearing none, approved
- 12:10:44 [McCool]
- topic: wide reviews
- 12:10:54 [McCool]
- ml: to recap, started wide review
- 12:11:35 [McCool]
- ... however, the schedule may need to be updated
- 12:11:51 [McCool]
- mm: note that asked for wide review to create issues in our repo
- 12:12:57 [McCool]
- ml: ok, looks like they have noticed our request, let's see if there are any issues
- 12:13:04 [kaz]
- i|to recap|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/358 wot-profile issue 358 - Wide review|
- 12:13:05 [McCool]
- ... and also any other new issues
- 12:13:10 [kaz]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 12:13:13 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:13:14 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/01-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz
- 12:13:28 [McCool]
- ml: seems to be no wide review issues yet
- 12:13:39 [Ege]
- Ege has joined #wot-profile
- 12:16:15 [McCool]
- ml: some followup conversation on cloud message format
- 12:16:40 [Ege]
- q+
- 12:16:54 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:16:55 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/01-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz
- 12:17:06 [kaz]
- chair: Lagally
- 12:17:34 [kaz]
- i/some foll/topic: PR 330/
- 12:17:53 [McCool]
- .. regarding cloud events, I think we need to make a clear policy decision
- 12:18:07 [McCool]
- ege: suggest however we skip this for now since it's informative
- 12:18:19 [kaz]
- i|some fol|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/330 wot-profile PR 330 - Cloud Events Message Format|
- 12:18:38 [kaz]
- q+
- 12:18:40 [kaz]
- ack e
- 12:18:48 [McCool]
- ... in particular security and async actions
- 12:19:09 [McCool]
- q?
- 12:19:12 [Ege]
- q+
- 12:19:52 [kaz]
- ack k
- 12:19:55 [McCool]
- kaz: regarding PR #330, not sure we can discuss without ben
- 12:20:07 [McCool]
- q+
- 12:21:22 [kaz]
- s/without ben/without Ben. If we need his participation for this PR, we should invite him to one of the Profile calls rather than we discuss this without him today./
- 12:21:35 [McCool]
- ege: regarding policy, in current spec (maybe old text), said reduce impl burden...
- 12:21:41 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:21:42 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/01-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz
- 12:22:00 [McCool]
- mm: still, suggest we prioritize normative topics today; since security is WIP, that leaves async actions
- 12:22:22 [kaz]
- topic: PR 271
- 12:22:23 [McCool]
- topic: Pr 271
- 12:22:23 [mlagally_]
- https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/271
- 12:22:34 [kaz]
- s/topic: Pr 271//
- 12:22:51 [McCool]
- ml: this is in the normative section, implementation of a conversation we had about identifiers
- 12:23:10 [kaz]
- s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/271|-">https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/271|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/271 wot-profile PR 271 - Common constraints - identifiers|
- 12:24:03 [kaz]
- -> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-profile/271/885bfe1...2178fa8.html#sec-identifiers diff
- 12:24:13 [kaz]
- s/diff/diff - 8. Identifiers/
- 12:24:17 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:24:18 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/01-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz
- 12:24:59 [Ege]
- q+
- 12:26:14 [Ege]
- https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/349
- 12:26:26 [McCool]
- mm: issue is we can't have contradictory assertions about requiring immutable identifiers in one place and not allowing them in another
- 12:26:44 [McCool]
- ege: also, in some cases we are repeating assertions already in the TD spec
- 12:27:14 [kaz]
- [[
- 12:27:15 [kaz]
- Ideally, any required immutable identifiers SHOULD only be made available via affordances, such as a property, whose value can only be obtained after appropriate authentication and authorization, and managed separately from the TD identifier.
- 12:27:16 [kaz]
- ]]
- 12:27:34 [McCool]
- mm: agree with ege; we can have an informative statement referencing another assertion in another spec, but repeating it should be avoided
- 12:28:02 [McCool]
- ege: in the end profiles define TDs which need to follow the TD spec
- 12:28:13 [kaz]
- q+
- 12:28:18 [kaz]
- ack e
- 12:28:22 [McCool]
- ml: still, TD may have assertions that are not applicable
- 12:28:43 [McCool]
- ... if there are anything contradictory, please point them out, we don't want that
- 12:29:30 [McCool]
- ege: if there are some assertions that are not applicable, if there is a subset, may need a mechanism for this
- 12:29:52 [McCool]
- ... but if it's simply that we don't use some features, don't really have to say anything
- 12:29:55 [McCool]
- q+
- 12:31:21 [McCool]
- mm: we need to be clear by what we mean by "not using a feature" - it can be not mentioning something, and there can be forbidding use of a feature
- 12:32:00 [McCool]
- ege: question is whether the profile doc can override an assertion in the TD spec
- 12:32:02 [McCool]
- q+
- 12:32:08 [McCool]
- q?
- 12:32:16 [kaz]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/349 related issue 349 - Are all TD 1.1 assertions valid in all profiles?
- 12:33:08 [McCool]
- ml: please create if PR
- 12:34:16 [McCool]
- mm: subset may be confusing; meant in mathematical sense, but...
- 12:34:31 [McCool]
- ... still, suggest we look at actions
- 12:34:55 [McCool]
- kaz: question is which level of text should be included in profile, normative or not, etc.
- 12:35:28 [McCool]
- ... for example, some things could just be guidelines, and then reference other specs for normative content
- 12:35:40 [McCool]
- ... more important things can be normative
- 12:37:03 [McCool]
- ... still seems to be some overlap and confusion that need to decide how to resolve
- 12:37:23 [McCool]
- ... e.g. maybe some TD text should be moved to this spec
- 12:37:36 [McCool]
- q?
- 12:37:38 [McCool]
- ack m
- 12:37:41 [McCool]
- ack k
- 12:38:02 [McCool]
- ml: let's look at P1 issues, esp async actions
- 12:39:15 [McCool]
- q+
- 12:40:53 [McCool]
- ack m
- 12:40:58 [McCool]
- topic: Actions
- 12:41:08 [McCool]
- ml: specific issues?
- 12:41:28 [McCool]
- ege: remember discussion, not sure there are specific issue, but problem is testing
- 12:41:34 [kaz]
- s/create if PR/create a PR/
- 12:41:42 [McCool]
- ... some discussion about removing it; how needed is it?
- 12:41:58 [luca_barbato]
- luca_barbato has joined #wot-profile
- 12:42:12 [McCool]
- ... also, it tends to result in large TDs or those that don't follow TD spec
- 12:42:23 [McCool]
- ml: if does not follow, please create issues
- 12:42:51 [kaz]
- i|specific issues|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AP1 Priority 1 issues|
- 12:42:51 [McCool]
- ege: some TDs submitted for testing were very large
- 12:42:56 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:42:58 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/01-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz
- 12:43:05 [McCool]
- ml: what is the problem with that?
- 12:43:24 [McCool]
- ege: feel the schema definitions are not being using in the intended way; additional responses being used to model interactions
- 12:43:41 [McCool]
- ml: what is "enough" implementations?
- 12:43:51 [luca_barbato]
- q+
- 12:43:55 [McCool]
- ege: at least one more on thing side and two more on consumer side
- 12:44:00 [Ege]
- https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/blob/main/data/input_2022/Profile/TD/Oracle/TDs/BluePump%20WebThing.td.jsonld
- 12:44:10 [McCool]
- ml: want draft first, then implementations
- 12:44:21 [McCool]
- ege: also a question about how needed it is
- 12:44:39 [McCool]
- ... e.g. discussion of removing device flow for OAuth, that's ok
- 12:44:53 [McCool]
- ml: in many use cases async actions are widely used
- 12:45:15 [kaz]
- present+ Luca_Barbato
- 12:45:19 [McCool]
- ... if TD does not allow us to model payload formats, it becomes a problem
- 12:45:59 [McCool]
- ... seems to be overkill to go a binding template for one or two payload formats
- 12:46:00 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:46:02 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/01-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz
- 12:46:17 [kaz]
- q+
- 12:46:22 [McCool]
- ... feel that profile is redefining a payload format and behavior
- 12:46:28 [McCool]
- q+
- 12:47:12 [McCool]
- luca: we tried to implement async actions, do think that actions in general should be treated asynchronously
- 12:47:32 [McCool]
- ... we are missing some features, for example a way to observe actions, part of the problem
- 12:47:46 [McCool]
- ... at least, when we try to implement that part, saw there was a problem
- 12:47:57 [Ege]
- also relevant comment about this: https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/pull/55#discussion_r1114152244
- 12:48:25 [McCool]
- ... but in general, actions *are* asynchronous, if we assume they are synchronous it leads to a lot of problems
- 12:48:43 [McCool]
- ... another issue is multiple invocations of an actions
- 12:49:14 [McCool]
- ... lots of clarification is needed, but in general I don't feel we can get away with not doing then
- 12:49:43 [Ege]
- q+
- 12:49:54 [kaz]
- ack lu
- 12:50:21 [McCool]
- mm: to clarify, you thing async actions are important, and are working on an implementation?
- 12:50:35 [kaz]
- s/you thing/you think/
- 12:50:37 [McCool]
- luca: correct, but also see some problems in the current spec, e.g. event mechanism
- 12:51:12 [McCool]
- ml: let me capture the event problem in an issue...
- 12:51:58 [McCool]
- q+
- 12:55:10 [McCool]
- ack m
- 12:55:40 [McCool]
- mm: note that queuing etc. has various issues and different behavior have different use cases
- 12:56:00 [McCool]
- ... also need to worry about arbitrary space being used for a queue
- 12:56:18 [McCool]
- kaz: think we need to think about where this goes... does it belong in profiles?
- 12:56:37 [McCool]
- ... can discuss it here, but may have to bring to other TFs later
- 12:56:59 [McCool]
- ml: have some problems with that from timeline perspective
- 12:57:33 [McCool]
- ... at end of charter, don't see problem with specifying additional behavior since TDs does not really say anything specific here
- 12:57:54 [McCool]
- ... do feel this behavioral description is a profile topic
- 12:58:31 [McCool]
- kaz: if we really do want to include all this information that is not described by other specs, then spec should be called "Implementation Details" or something
- 12:58:40 [McCool]
- ml: that does not really help anybody...
- 12:58:41 [McCool]
- q+
- 12:58:42 [McCool]
- q?
- 12:58:45 [McCool]
- ack k
- 12:59:11 [McCool]
- ml: Profiles is about how to use existing features in an unabiguous way, so imo this makes sense
- 12:59:28 [McCool]
- kaz: still, I think this discussion is broader than profiles
- 12:59:35 [McCool]
- ... think we need to think about it more
- 12:59:54 [McCool]
- ml: we do have a spec, an implementer has raised some issues about some loopholes
- 13:00:14 [McCool]
- ... do not want to reopen such fundamental things that have already been decided
- 13:00:27 [McCool]
- ... have a chapter which has already been reviewed, etc.
- 13:01:08 [McCool]
- ege: don't oppose async actions themselves, but feel TD is immature at this point, can't describe some of this
- 13:01:10 [kaz]
- s/about it/about how to describe it within which specification(s)/
- 13:01:25 [McCool]
- ... also tried to implement queued actions, need to dig into threading, etc.
- 13:01:41 [McCool]
- ... much simpler to implement actions that overwrite another one
- 13:02:03 [McCool]
- ... since queue is more difficult for implementors, so...
- 13:02:49 [McCool]
- ml: propose a consensus, that we remove queuing and use overwriting
- 13:03:18 [McCool]
- mm: agree, KISS principle, but maybe we want an event if an action gets overwritten/cancelled by another action posted
- 13:03:51 [McCool]
- luca: ok, let me look into it and see what I can do about a PR
- 13:04:08 [McCool]
- ml: issue 369
- 13:04:45 [luca_barbato]
- luca_barbato has left #wot-profile
- 13:05:46 [benfrancis]
- FYI The current actions protocol binding is not a queue. It doesn't say that actions can not be performed in parallel.
- 13:06:26 [kaz]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/369#issue-1604939950 comments on Issue 369 based on the discussion today
- 13:06:29 [kaz]
- [adjourned]
- 13:06:33 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 13:06:34 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/01-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz
- 14:56:06 [Mizushima]
- Mizushima has left #wot-profile
- 15:04:20 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wot-profile