Meeting minutes
Minutes review
<kaz> (skipped today)
Quick updates
McCool: Next Use Cases call on March 14. will continue the discussion on the policy for use case collection as well.
Planning
Testing
McCool: need input to the doodle poll for Testfest as well.
… Testfest doodle during the week of March 20
Binding Meetup
Mizushima: JP Meetup by WoT-JP CG
… held on Feb 27 with ECHONET
… two more meetings planned with IPA DADC and NHK
… afterwards we will report back
Publications progress check
McCool: schedule needs revision
… need to do PR
… we missed proposed deadlines
WG Charter
<McCool_> https://
McCool: We have 10 PRs
#75
<Github> PR 75 - Propose Chairs
McCool: Adds proposed chairs
Kaz: we can wait for more potential candidates
… what is the deadline?
McCool: More candidates can be added later
#76
<Github> PR 76 - Comment out note from template
McCool: removes process note
… simply formatting
… no objections -> merging
#79
<Github> PR 79 - Use Generic Spec Names
McCool: about versioning
… changed names of deliverables to be generic
McCool: no objections -> merging
WoT Charters PR #81
<Github> PR 81 - Remove onboarding from scope summary
McCool: removes onboarding from charter
… we might still do it
… just removed commitment
McCool: Got approvals and no objections -> merging
PR #83
<Github> PR 83 - typo fix
Daniel: typo fix
McCool: straight forward -> merging
PR 82
<kaz> PR 82 - adding architecture deliverable
<McCool_> related issue 16 - Architecture Restructuring
McCool: related issue 16
… whether Architecture should be normative or not
McCool: Personal opinion. Normative security in Arch.. need to go somewhere
… made some fixes like typos and renaming
<kaz> Preview
Lagally: <looking at content of PR>
… current charter is following same tasks
… it is continuing the work
… we just got TAG review saying it should be non-normative
Ege: TAG review was from this charter
… person raised good reasons
… Mozilla's objection to the Charter was made long time ago
… Assertions in Arch cause issue
… it is about implementation
… normative parts could be moved to specific documents
… no sense in having 20 assertions for Security in Arch document
Kaz: Before diving into the possible conclusion, i.e., normative spec or not, we should think about which parts/sections from the WoT Architecture spec should be normative first.
… If we can get a consensus during this call, that's great. However, if not, having a dedicated call would make sense.
McCool: We seem to have no consensus
Kaz: That's why I mentioned a possible additional call. In any case, we need to clarify which parts/sections from the WoT Architecture spec should be normative first.
McCool: I see, talking about sections
Lagally: We have normative sections about Consumer, etc.
… this is the status quo
… we might want to restructure it
… question is who is doing the work
… proposing is simple
McCool: I think internal restructuring is needed
… I would like to focus on Arch ... if someone else takes over discovery etc
… chapter "Application domains" is non normative etc
… chapter 6 Architecture is normative
… what are relevant assertions
… assertions need to be testable
… there are not that many assertions
… Q: Can those be handled somewhere else
McCool: chapter 7 building blocks is non normative
… chapter 8 and 9 is non normative
… Chapter 10 Security is normative
… Section 6 and 10 are the only normative sections
Lagally: Architecture discussion ... for tomorrow
McCool: it boils down to whether. Is Arch the best place for normative sections
… for 10 Security, it has to go in another document.. I think
Ege: Commit to move assertions in another document
… Question: are people reading Arch spec?
… I think management reads Arch document
… implementors do not read Arch spec
… it is a burden to test Arch spec
Kaz: Agree with McCool looking into dedicated sections
… it is a different question whether developers read this document
Kaz: I think people do read Arch document
Ege: I was referring to the assertions
McCool: Purpose of assertion?
… thing you can test
… or requirements
<Ege> for the minutes, I am not saying that people do not read the architecture specification. Just that during the implementation stage, people do not refer to the assertions in there
McCool: I don't think we can agree soon
… suggest to look at the assertion and move them if best
… by keeping Arch document being normative
<Ege> that is fine kaz, we can discuss other time
Lagally: I like that
Lagally: I also agree with Ege... some sections are for project managers no developers
Lagally: Agree with the approach to go with normative Arch and discuss it the next weeks while Charter review
Kaz: test reports needed for W3C process based on assertions
… checking the content and sections is very important
McCool: We are not saying Arch is not important
… the question is about assertions
… Ege thinks it causes testing burden
… it is a practical question
Kaz: testing does not only meaning automatic test
… but also manual tests
… we need humans in the loop
McCool: True
Kaz: question is what is required and what is optional
Ege: I agree with Kaz on it's not only about automatic testing, but the problems with the assertion is real
… some assertions are very generic
Ege: argument to keep Arch normative because it was normative does not make sense
… we got strong opinion from TAG
… I do not agree with Arch being normative
Lagally: Concern by Ege or by Siemens?
Ege: Also from Sebastian...
… from Ben Francis
Lagally: I would like to see a "Siemens" opinion
Ege: Will do
Lagally: What is the counter proposal?
McCool: List Arch under other deliverable ..
Lagally: Please provide a PR
<MMC adds proposal to PR 82>
<kaz> PR 82 - adding architecture deliverable
McCool: move Arch to informative deliverables
… plan to relocate other assertions
Lagally: I don't see a reason for doing that
… we don't have consensus
… need feedback from other members
McCool: doing it next week would put as back 2 weeks behind schedule for AC review
… consensus is more important
Kaz: As team contact: I suggest to look into content of Arch document
… personally I think we could merge Arch and Profile
… That's just my personal opinion about a possibility.
… However, bigger discussion about how to deal with the content of the Architecture spec should happen before making the conclusion about whether Architecture spec should be normative or not.
McCool: I strongly object merging Arch and Profile, because those two documents define completely different viewpoints.
… but we do need introductory document
McCool: let's spend time tomorrow discussing feasibility
<Ege> Please see w3c/
Lagally: Small note
… should we have proposal a) and b)
… a) merging this PR and b) being Arch non-normative
… but let's discuss this tomorrow
McCool: If there are other ideas please bring them up
Ege: I created alternative PR
McCool: No testing call today
[adjourned]