Meeting minutes
Guests and IEs
McCool: there was a IE request
… in the chairs call decided not to accept
McCool: we have no guest today
minutes
minutes from Apr-26.html Apr-26
McCool: any updates or objections?
no, minutes approved
Quick updates
Cancellations
McCool: next week is ambiguous
Kaz: We should put concrete date for each meeting. Note that sometimes we want to cancel meetings within two weeks.
McCool: We should put a specific deadline here. Also we need to make decision about Profile too.
… Ben would be the main contributor
McCool: proposal suspend Profile work until the end of the Charter and then restart the new Charter.
McCool: any objections?
no
AC meeting debrief
Kaz: Legal Entity updates, etc., were the main topics.
… if you are a Member there are minutes available
WG Charter review status
<kaz> Strategy pipeline issue 375 for WoT WG Rechartering
McCool: there was a comment about the rechartering
… the comment is from APA
<MM enters a respond in the issue>
McCool: I think, it is not a blocker on the Charter
… expect a decision next week
Kaz: I created a GitHub repo for the Chair's role definition
… only accessable for the chair candidates
TPAC 2023 planning
<kaz> TPAC 2023 questionnaire (Member-only)
McCool: there was a questionnaire to provide the number of attendees and the planed joint meetings
<MM shows the latest submitted questionnaire version>
… currently we plan in persons 10 people
… we need joint meetings between two goups which requires corresponding room space
Kaz: there should be also extra chairs for observers
McCool: the WoT meetings are planned for Thursday and Friday, right?
Kaz: yes
McCool: I thought there are 2x2h meetings each day
Kaz: depends on the agenda. For example, if we rather prefer holding our own vF2F meeting separately before or after the TPAC week, just having discussion in afternoon is ok.
<McCool_> proposal: For TPAC 2023 qs response, change to two sessions each day, afternoon slots on Thursday and Friday.
+1
RESOLUTION: For TPAC 2023 qs response, change to two sessions each day, afternoon slots on Thursday and Friday.
Planning
<kaz> Schedule
McCool: we have to look at our schedule.
<MM shows a PR that updates the timetable>
https://
McCool: to be realistic, new charter will start in July
McCool: is it ok to merge this PR?
Ege: the binding template publications date is outdated
Ege: there was already a call for resolution in March
Kaz: Note that there are two levels of resolution, one by the TD TF and another by the whole WoT WG.
… It seems the TD TF made a resolution for 2-week review, and Ege sent out a Call for Review to the whole WG on April 5.
… So we need to ask the whole WG for resolution for publication today.
<kaz> March-29 TD minutes
<kaz> Call for Review for Binding
McCool: lets ask for resolution again here
<Ege> proposal: After the merge of the two editorial PRs, the Binding Templates core document can be published: w3c/
Ege: there was also an email sent out
McCool: any objections?
no
Ege: individual bindings are kaz: I'm OK with this resolution itself given those belated PRs are completely editorial, but we should confirm they're completely editorial.t part of the publications
<kaz> PR 288 - Make XML Binding "planned"
<kaz> PR 286 - Fix Editorial issues and examples
<MM shows the PRs>
Kaz: please place a resolution again
McCool: any objections about the PRs?
<kaz> (no objections)
RESOLUTION: After the merge of the two editorial PRs, the Binding Templates core document can be published: w3c/
<McCool_> w3c/
<McCool_> proposal: Change the proposed start date of the next charter to July 1, 2023
+1
RESOLUTION: Change the proposed start date of the next charter to July 1, 2023
Kaz: We don't need to update the start/end dates every time, because the draft Charter says [[date of the "Call for Participation", when the charter is approved]].
Testfest
McCool: Today we completed testing
<MM shows the latest results>
https://
McCool: Arch and TD in a very good shape
[Architecture] Low priority: (1) arch-security-consideration-hal-refuse-unsafe Additional assertions which however have problems and we will retire without attempting to test: (1) arch-security-consideration-use-psk (2) arch-security-consideration-dtls-1-3 [Thing Description] High Priority: All high-priority assertions have been resolved. Medium Priority: (1) privacy-immutable-id-as-property Intel to do Lower Priority: Less-used features, guidelines (2) td-security-oauth2-device-flow (2) security-context-secure-fetch
McCool: Discovery is a bit worse shape
… however, we manage to the caught up the most things
<McCool shows Discovery's high, medium and lower priority assertations>
[Discovery] High Priority: (1) tdd-registrationinfo-expiry-config - Intel Relatively high priority: (2) tdd-http-alternate-language - Intel (1) tdd-validation-response-lang - Intel Medium Priority: (2) tdd-notification-data-diff-unsupported - Intel, Logilab Lower Priority: (1) sec-tdd-query-watchdog (1) sec-tdd-intro-no-multicast These have two but are also in security/privacy considerations and can be converted into "guidelines", so are also lower priority: (2) sec-tdd-throttle-queries (2) sec-tdd-limit-query-complexity (2) sec-tdd-intro-limit-response-size (2) sec-tdd-intro-throttling (1) sec-self-proxy - Intel? (2) priv-loc-disable-public-directories (2) priv-loc-anonymous-tds - Intel? (2) priv-loc-gen-ids - Intel? (2) priv-loc-explicit-strip (2) priv-query-anon This is for security bootstrapping with OAuth, would be useful for onboarding: (2) exploration-secboot-oauth2-flows
McCool: High and medium have 4 assertions left
McCool: any objections?
no
RESOLUTION: Conclude testing and proceed with preparation of the PR draft for Architecture 1.1.
McCool: same for TD:
<McCool_> proposal: Conclude testing and proceed with preparation of the PR draft for TD 1.1.
Ege: What happens if somebody actually submits a test input?
McCool: if you have results until tomorrow, we could probably squeeze it in
<McCool_> proposal: Conclude testing and proceed with preparation of the PR draft for TD 1.1.
McCool: any objections?
no
RESOLUTION: Conclude testing and proceed with preparation of the PR draft for TD 1.1
Kaz: Given (1) the original deadline was 2 weeks ago and (2) we're making resolution for Proposed Rec transition now, we should finalize the implementation report now. We still can accept implementation reports themselves any time.
<McCool_> proposal: Conclude testing and proceed with preparation of the PR draft for Discovery
RESOLUTION: Conclude testing and proceed with preparation of the PR draft for Discovery
Kaz: fine with the resolutions to move ahead, but we should record how to proceed with the drafts for PR publication, e.g., removing features, making some of them informative, changing "MUST" to "must".
McCool: OK. Let's record another resolution for that purpose.
<McCool_> proposal: Each TF will be responsible for how to resolve remaining at-risk assertions, then there will be a one-week review of the final PR drafts.
RESOLUTION: Each TF will be responsible for how to resolve remaining at-risk assertions, then there will be a one-week review of the final PR drafts.
next charter
McCool: we need to plan a meeting to organize next charter (schedule, planed deliverables, etc)
… Kaz will provide a doodle
adjourn
<kaz> (Test call starts in 24 mins for quick updates)