13:59:45 RRSAgent has joined #wot-td 13:59:50 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/22-wot-td-irc 13:59:56 meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 2 14:00:46 present+ Kaz_Ashimura 14:01:58 Mizushima has joined #wot-td 14:01:58 Ege has joined #wot-td 14:01:58 present+ Ege_Korkan, Daniel_Peintner, Kunihiko_Toumura 14:02:01 ktoumura has joined #wot-td 14:02:38 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#February_21_and_February_22%2C_2024 14:03:11 dape has joined #wot-td 14:04:20 mahda-noura has joined #wot-td 14:04:32 present+ Mahda_Noura 14:06:35 q+ 14:06:39 mjk has joined #wot-td 14:07:02 ack k 14:07:15 Topic: agenda review 14:07:27 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#February_21_and_February_22%2C_2024 agenda for today 14:07:41 ege: mainly want to discuss registry requirements 14:08:04 Topic: minutes review 14:08:21 present+ Jan_Romann, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima 14:08:26 ege: any corrections or additions? 14:08:35 -> https://www.w3.org/2024/02/15-wot-td-minutes.html Feb-15 14:09:24 topic: redirection setting 14:09:54 ege: Kaz has completed the redirections for resources, thank you 14:10:09 topic: binding templates 14:10:23 i|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1807 Issue 1807 - TM namespace not active yet| 14:10:35 ege: there is a discussion about CoAP we should summarize 14:11:04 ege: there is a minimum polling interval for a server 14:11:14 i|kaz has|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1807 Issue 1807 - TM namespace not active yet| 14:11:31 i|kaz has|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-resources/pull/20 wot-resources PR 20 - TD 1.1 Resource Finalization| 14:12:15 ... Klaus Hartke is proposing a minimum polling interval as an integer 14:12:20 i|there is a dis|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/352 wot-binding-templates PR 352 - Min Polling Interval in CoAP| 14:12:30 ... any comments? 14:12:37 jan: looks good to me 14:13:13 ege: other comments or concerns? 14:13:37 ... OK, we will fixup the tooling and merge 14:13:43 topic: registry 14:13:43 rrsagent, make log public 14:14:08 i/there is a dis/subtopic: CoAP/ 14:14:14 s/topic: re/subtopic: re/ 14:14:19 luca_barbato has joined #wot-td 14:14:42 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/1177 wot Issue 1177 - Registry Requirements 14:14:58 ege: today we can agree on the overall concept 14:15:24 JKRhb has joined #wot-td 14:15:37 ... there were questions about whether we should use IANA 14:16:09 q+ 14:16:18 ... what is the benefit of using IAMA instead of a W3C registry? 14:16:59 luca: IANA has the registry for URI schemes 14:17:09 cris_ has joined #wot-td 14:17:11 ... we have to go through them anyway 14:17:18 q+ 14:17:31 ... we don't need a RFC for registering URI schemes 14:17:50 ege: it's a common pattern to provide a RFC 14:18:24 ... we should check the actual requirement 14:19:03 For URI schemes, you apparently only need a " permanently available, stable, protocol specification", c.f. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7595.html#section-7.2 14:19:09 ... we have to decide whether to be strict about the requirement to register URIs 14:19:49 ... this also applies to subprotocols and media types 14:20:11 ack lu 14:21:33 kaz: I'm confused here, was thinking we were talking about binding registry 14:21:53 ... Do we want to use IANA for registration of binding templates? 14:22:28 ege: there was a question about whether we should use IANA for registration instead or in addition to W3C 14:23:02 kaz: we should clarify what we want to do and what information is to be managed under the registration 14:23:35 q+ 14:23:41 ... before we can dive into the question of where to host the registry 14:23:48 q? 14:25:00 kaz: IANA doesn't currently have a way to register WoT binding template information 14:25:56 kaz: maybe there is some misunderstanding, expected to survey existing registries for design patterns 14:26:37 ... and mechanisms. Is this your understanding also? 14:26:58 ege: yes, but the issue was brought up in the meeting 3 weeks ago 14:27:13 ... wanted to make sure we discuss it more 14:27:16 q+ 14:27:32 ... not suggesting that we create a new IANA registry 14:27:42 q? 14:28:28 kaz: we need to discuss our own requirements more. This question doesn't make sense 14:28:30 ack k 14:29:25 jan: wanted to point out that adding a URI registration in IANA does not require a RFC 14:29:47 q+ 14:29:51 q+ 14:30:01 ... the spec document can be a W3C document 14:30:06 q? 14:30:32 ege: q? 14:30:44 s/q?// 14:30:56 qq+ cris_ 14:31:29 ack c 14:31:33 ack cris 14:31:33 cris_, you wanted to react to kaz 14:31:44 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi 14:31:56 cris: IANA also allows provisional registration 14:32:11 ack jk 14:32:58 luca: to clarify, we need a relationship with IANA for URIs and media types 14:33:22 ... for bindings, we register protocols and payloads 14:33:36 rrsagent, make log public 14:33:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:33:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/22-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:34:16 chair: Ege, Koster 14:34:20 ... we are going through IANA anyway and could streamline the process for new payload ed media types 14:34:39 s/ed media types/bindings 14:35:04 present+ Luca_Barbato 14:35:10 luca: protocol bindings need URI registration 14:35:26 ... maybe it is easier to do it all in IANA 14:35:43 q? 14:35:48 ack lu 14:37:41 ege: maybe it is better to use W3C mechanisms 14:39:08 kaz: This is a good discussion but still confused. We should add one line at the top of the summary that we need to clarify what is needed for protocol binding managemant 14:39:31 ... before we decide which organization to host the registry 14:40:01 ... following the web codec use of W3C is also a possibility 14:40:27 q- 14:40:30 ... suggest a joint discussion with web codec group about their use of W3C registry 14:40:47 This could be a good breakout session topic 14:40:56 s/This/... This/ 14:41:01 s/This/kaz: This/ 14:41:07 q? 14:41:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:41:30 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/22-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:41:37 q? 14:41:47 s/kaz: This/This/ 14:41:49 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:41:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/22-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:42:25 ege: had a chat with web codec people at TPAC 14:42:58 ... they said we need to think carefully about the rules 14:43:13 ... it's up to each individual spec 14:43:17 q+ 14:43:32 q- 14:43:48 kaz: let's have a follow up discussion and ask for more advice 14:43:57 https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/registry-analysis/Readme.md#wot-requirements-and-expectations-for-a-potential-binding-registry 14:44:36 ege: discussion now about requirements for the binding registry 14:45:10 ... the use case is integration with existing protocols and communities 14:45:34 ... it's impractical to include all of the bindings in the rec 14:46:13 ... want to review the requirements and rules we have so far 14:46:58 ... first point is who can write a binding. W3C membership is not required, subject expertise is more important 14:47:12 q? 14:47:21 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/registry-analysis/Readme.md#wot-requirements-and-expectations-for-a-potential-binding-registry|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/registry-analysis/Readme.md#wot-requirements-and-expectations-for-a-potential-binding-registry Requirements for potential binding registry (withing the survey page)| 14:47:22 ... any discussion on this point? 14:47:23 q+ 14:48:02 kaz: we should improve this section about our own requirements more 14:48:50 ege: add a TODO for following up with the web codec group 14:49:33 ege: next point is aligning bindings with TD versions 14:50:24 ... next point is WoT control of the registry 14:50:50 ... we should limit the duplication of bindings 14:51:18 ... How strict should we be about URI schemes being defined and registered? 14:51:55 q+ 14:52:01 ... this needs more discussion 14:52:07 q? 14:52:14 q- 14:53:03 cris: maybe the provisional registration would make the process easier 14:53:44 ... they have a duplication policy to check the provisional registrations before registration of new schemes 14:53:56 s/they/IANA/ 14:54:53 q? 14:55:40 ege: creating a draft PR for registry requirements 14:56:09 topic: use case for geolocation 14:56:59 ege: there is a document for geolocation requirements 14:57:04 q+ 14:57:16 ack c 14:57:16 ... reviewed and didn't find it to be actionable 14:57:35 ... needs to be considered by the use case TF first 14:57:47 kaz: agree 14:58:53 ... we are working on specific examples in the UC TF, this could become another early example for what actionable information is needed 14:59:43 q? 14:59:46 q- 15:00:16 ege: adjourned 15:01:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:01:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/22-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 17:00:19 Zakim has left #wot-td