Meeting minutes
Minutes review
<kaz> May-15
PRs
McCool: some PRs will close some issues
Resolve tdd-registrationinfo-expiry-config #482
<McCool_> https://
McCool: commented out the
assertion markdown in case we want to add it back and reuse the same
ID
… changed MAY to may
Resolve tdd-http-alternate-language and tdd-validation-response-lang #483
<McCool_> https://
[refer to PR description and new inline comments for details]
merged
Resolve resolve-tdd-notification-data-diff-unsupported #484
<McCool_> https://
McCool: accepted the suggestion on PR for simpler wording
merged
Resolve exploration-secboot-oauth2-flows #485
https://
McCool: it appears that
the entire "MUST reply with an HTTP "401 (Unauthorized)" response
code..." assertion was at risk. So we need to downgrade the whole
assertion.
… need to rework the PR
… will close in favor of a new PR.
<benfrancis> Sorry I can't join (noisy cafe), but surely, technically, as long as a server responded with either 401 response, or a 302/304 response, the assertion was satisfied?
<benfrancis> (Never mind, I will follow up asynchronously)
Resolve security assertions #486
https://
McCool: We can't make the entire section informative (PR suggestion), because some of the assertions are not at risk.
Resolve privacy assertions #487
https://
McCool: some normative
assertions but they were all at risk going into CR
… making everything under the section as
informative requires consensus
Farshid: better leave them mixed in as with the security considerations
Resolve sort_by specification PR #488
https://
McCool: we didn't specify
the syntax for the sort_by
… we also didn't specify what to do if the field is
missing from the TD
… it was at risk going to CR, so we can downgrade
the whole assertion to an informative statement
… and at the same time replace it with JSON
Pointer.
… Keeping the feature as informative is strange.
Better take out the whole assertion and related ones.
… there is one non-at-risk assertion but it depends
on the at-risk ones. So, removing that too is
justified.
… This also affect the sort_order argument which is
specified together with sort_by in the same at-risk
assertion.
… Need to also edit the Thing Model to drop sort_by
and sort_order
… as well as the example for HTTP error
codes.
add reference to IoT'16 paper #489
https://
McCool: This PR resolves
Issue 147
… by adding a paper mentioned in the
issue
… promised the authors to reference
them
… cited them in the examples section and added them
to the Acknowledgements section
… also need to finish the Acknowledgement section,
mention all contributors, should be very mechanical based on the
commit logs of the last two years
… can also do it offline
… any objection to merging this?
… hearing no objection, merging
<McCool_> https://
Merged
Add Acknowledgements #490
<McCool_> https://
<McCool_> still need to finish the acknowledgement
McCool: The issue about the
Acknowledgments is #490, I will open another PR to resolve it
… will resolve by the time of the final
resolution
PR 472
<kaz> PR 472 - Make DNS-SD service name for UDP TDD informative
McCool: This one also
relates to an at-risk item
… we agreed the assertion regarding UDP and TDDs
was unresolvable
<McCool_> https://
McCool: so we split up the
table
… I added a sentence saying that "this table is
normative" and marked the TDD UDP assertion as "For future
use"
… as it is reserved, since it is registered with
IANA
… (explains the new table structure in the
document)
… any objections to merging?
No objections, merged
PR 471
<kaz> PR 471 - Update context URLs
McCool: We had this long
discussion regarding context URLs
… made a long list of changes
… context URLs are now using the year 2022 and
"-did" instead of "/did"
… in order to avoid conflicts in the
future
… the context URL for directories is still using
"/discovery"
… also updated all of the examples
Farshid: I am wondering if you also removed all of the editors' notes? Since there were a couple that mentioned this
McCool: Let me check
… (finds that there still a number of Editor's
notes regarding this issue, removes them)
… one other note is commented out, I will leave
that one alone
… (finds a couple of other commented out notes,
leaves them as they are)
… (looks at the new state of the PR)
… let's double check the rendering
… URLs got changed, some whitespace changes, notes
got taken out, pagination got also updated
… I think we're good, any objection to
merging?
… (no objections, merged)
McCool: I think that means we have no more PRs
Issues
McCool: Let's filter by
"resolve by PR"
… there is a distressingly large number
left
… but I guess that can also be interpreted as
"defer"
Issue 187
<kaz> Issue 187 - Registration of Well-known URI, DNS-SD and DID Service Names, CoRE Resource Type
McCool: This is about the
registration with IANA
… this is all done
… (closes the issue)
Issue 201
<kaz> Issue 201 - Sequence diagrams for DID based discovery approaches
McCool: This one, I did not
get around to, I am not going to resolve it, so no sequence
diagram
… but I will simply mark it as "defer to discovery
2.0"
Issue 402
<kaz> Issue 402 - Register DID service names
McCool: I think this one is
also done
… the issue is that they haven't merged their PR
yet since they need an ontology file
… but I have created a PR
… and updated it
… (adds a comment to the issue)
… question is, should we leave it open and wait or
should we close it?
… I think it is something that we can label as
"Resolve by REC"
Kaz: As I mentioned,
this kind of registration process is different from the publication
process
… so we can move ahead and resolve this issue
later
McCool: I agree, let's
label it as "Resolve by end of charter"
… (adds the label)
Issue 467
<kaz> Issue 467 - Resolve Remaining DID issues
McCool: We did this
… but the ontology is still open
… let's relate it to the other issue
(402)
… (adds a comment)
… (adds the label "Resolve by end of
charter")
Issue 449
<kaz> Issue 449 - DID Implementation Fix
McCool: This has been fixed
actually
… so I think we can close this issue
Issue 448
<kaz> Issue 448 - Assertion for DNS referencing UDP may be split normative/informative
McCool: This one, I
actually fixed already
… PR 472 fixed it, but the issue was not
automatically closed for some reason
… (adds a comment and closes the issue)
Issue 328
<McCool_> Issue 328 - CR WD review June 2022
McCool: This was an
editorial review, so I am going to close it
… not sure if it was fully resolved
… I am going to remove the label
… (adds a comment that the issue is not a blocker
for PR)
Issue 148
<kaz> Issue 148 - Discovery context and namespace under w3.org/ns
McCool: This one I think is
also resolved
… we had to sort out which our context URLs are and
I think we did that
… so we can close the issue
… any objections to closing?
… (adds a comment and closes the issue)
Issue 141
<kaz> Issue 141 - Add query examples to spec
McCool: Great idea, but did
not get around to work on it
… let's defer it to 2.0
… (changes the label)
Issue 69
<McCool_> https://
McCool: In general, we
probably need to defer informative issues
… this also applies to this issue
… (adds the "Defer to 2.0" label)
Issue 64
<kaz> Issue 64 - XPath queries of vocabulary using namespaces
McCool: (adds the "defer to
2.0" label)
… now we have two issues left
… my plan is to do the acknowledgements offline and
then send an email to the group to check
Issue 185
<kaz> former wot-discovery Issue 185, which has been moved to wot-profile as Issue 397
McCool: To resolve this, I
think we should move this to the Profile repository
… (moves the issue to the wot-profile
repository)
Next steps
McCool: now only the
Acknowledgments are left, which means that we are basically
done
… I could do that now or offline
… I'll do it offline and then send an email
around
… with an alphabtical list of all people who
submitted a PR, whether it was merged or not
… editors won't be mentioned a second time in the
Acknowledgements section
McCool: anything else we
need to worry about?
… I will do another readthrough, if I notice
anything editorial, I will send an email around
… it will basically be a sanity check, other than
that we are done
Kaz: Do you mean we will make the resolution for publication by email?
McCool: We could do the
resolution right now
… which is not a bad idea
<McCool_> proposal: Discovery TF approves the current version of the WoT Discovery document as the PR draft, with the exception of additional acknowledgements and spelling and grammar corrections.
Kaz: Does that mean that we already resolved all necessary issues and PRs?
McCool: Yes, we are done, except for editorial changes
<McCool_> proposal: Discovery TF approves the current version of the WoT Discovery document as the PR draft, with the exception of additional acknowledgements and spelling and grammar corrections. Final editorial changes will be approved during the main call prior to the resolution for PR transition.
McCool: we should do a call for resolution in the main call for PR transition
Kaz: So the remaining issues can be deferred?
McCool: The remaining ones
are deferred or related to the implementation report
… but there are also some editorial
ones
… in the remaining time we could scan these issues
to see if there is anything we should resolve
… (goes through the issues, labels some as
editorial)
… will double-check issue 410
… will see if I can clean it up as part of the
general cleanup
… (labels issue 413 as deferred to Discovery
2.0)
<McCool_> proposal: Discovery TF approves the current version of the WoT Discovery document as the PR draft, with the exception of additional acknowledgements and spelling and grammar corrections. Final editorial changes will be approved during the main call prior to the resolution for PR transition.
RESOLUTION: Discovery TF approves the current version of the WoT Discovery document as the PR draft, with the exception of additional acknowledgements and spelling and grammar corrections. Final editorial changes will be approved during the main call prior to the resolution for PR transition.
Testing
McCool: Some testing things need to be resolved by PR transition
<McCool_> https://
McCool: issue 416 has been
resolved, going to close it
… (closes issue 416)
… issue 415 has also been resolved
… can you look into this issue, Farshid?
Farshid: Will look into it
McCool: I update the
implementation report, please look into the testing-related issues
in the meantime
… (adds "Resolve by PR" to issue 415)
McCool: Let's close the meeting
[adjourned]