12:04:06 RRSAgent has joined #wot-discovery 12:04:11 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-irc 12:04:16 meeting: WoT Discovery 12:04:33 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Jan_Romann 12:06:24 scribenick: JKRhb 12:06:32 topic: Minutes Review 12:06:53 mm: (reads through last meeting's minutes) 12:07:12 ... actually, this is odd (refers to WoT-JP CG meeting) 12:07:24 ... I think we ended up discussing the feedback in discovery, right? 12:07:35 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2024/03/11-wot-discovery-minutes.html Mar-11 12:07:39 kaz: Yeah, we discussed it in the discovery call 12:07:47 s/agenda: /-> / 12:07:55 mm: Let's add a note to the minutes then 12:08:05 ... if there are no objections, minutes are approved 12:08:11 agenda https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Discovery_WebConf#18_March_2024 12:08:13 No objections, minutes are approved 12:08:18 rrsagent, make log public 12:08:20 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:08:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 12:08:29 topic: Plan for Discovery Input 12:08:51 mm: Would like to talk briefly about the CG stuff 12:09:14 ... later want to talk about issues, PRs, and planning, getting stuff done 12:10:10 mm: I think the most efficient way to deal with discovery input is to elect someone who writes summaries and brings up them in the call 12:10:28 q+ 12:10:46 ... so I would like to have someone from the WoT JP CG to summarize the discussion and then file issues against the relevant repositories 12:10:58 ack k 12:11:14 q+ 12:11:14 kaz: Agree, that's what I also asked Ege and Mizushima-San regarding the inter-TF collaboration 12:11:43 mm: Yeah, and filing issues against the issue eventually would be the way eventually 12:12:21 kaz: The question is then also whether people should first talk to the UC Taskforce and generate issues from that, or whether they should file issues directly 12:12:26 ... is there a preference? 12:12:31 mm: Both is possible 12:12:33 s/also asked/also have been asking/ 12:13:00 s/issues directly/issues for each TF directly/ 12:13:03 ... filing a bug should be filed against the respective repository 12:13:20 ... also depends on whether it is a functional or technical requirement 12:13:33 s/is there a preference?/think we need to ask them about their preference and availability for that purpose./ 12:13:39 rrsagent, make log public 12:13:42 ... first step, however, is to file an issue somewhere, so bring it to the issue tracker in general 12:13:46 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:13:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 12:14:14 ... the presentation by Krellian had some relevant use cases regarding filtering and queries 12:14:21 q? 12:14:23 ack k 12:14:24 q+ 12:14:26 ... but that has not been formally written up yet 12:14:51 kaz: I wouldn't say everyone should have to join every CG meeting 12:15:01 ack k 12:15:04 ktoumura has joined #wot-discovery 12:15:13 ... but we need to clarify the process of how input is being processed 12:15:21 mm: Exactly, should be discussed in the main call 12:15:26 topic: Issues 12:16:05 subtopic: DID repo PR 486 12:16:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:16:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 12:16:25 q? 12:16:27 q+ 12:16:30 mm: Unfornatunately, this PR is still pending 12:16:37 ... open for over a month now 12:16:53 kaz: Maybe we should send a reminder to them? Or ask them about the status? 12:17:04 i|Unfor|-> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/486/files did-spec-registries PR 486 - Add WotThing and WotDirectory service types| 12:17:13 mm: Weirdly, it has been approved already 12:17:24 ... (adds a comment asking for the status to the PR) 12:17:34 s/Unfornatunately/Unfortunately/ 12:17:34 present+ Kunihiko_Toumura, Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:17:39 chair: McCool 12:18:19 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:18:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 12:18:26 ... this should at least put it to the top of the "recently updated" list 12:18:33 topic: Planning 12:18:49 mm: Next, I wanted to talk about how we can make actual progress 12:19:00 ... I think we have some clearly motivated work items 12:19:08 ... would like to clean up the requirements 12:19:25 ... I think we should start with cleaning up the issue tracker 12:19:38 subtopic: Issues 12:19:47 mm: We have 60 issues open 12:19:53 ... should figure out what to do 12:20:08 ... two new issues by Ege, which we should prioritize 12:20:24 ... we have also two issues regarding ontologies, which I hope we can clean up soon 12:20:39 ... we have another one regarding a work item, related to polling 12:20:46 ... some other are editorial 12:21:10 ... there is also some stuff related to work items which we could cross-reference 12:21:28 topic: Issues 12:21:37 subtopic: Issue 201 12:22:23 mm: (Applies the label "editorial" to the issue) 12:22:37 s/subtopic: Issues/topic: Issues/ 12:22:47 s/topic: Issues// 12:23:08 subtopic: General Issue Review 12:23:33 s/General Issue Review/Issue 164/ 12:23:55 mm: So one general question is how the process of updating TDs should happen 12:24:12 ... current design assumes devices will update before the TTL expires 12:24:38 ... this issue adds some responsibility to the TDD to ask the device for updates 12:24:49 ... problem: devices that are not always online 12:24:56 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:24:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 12:25:04 ... second problem: devices might not have a clock 12:25:33 ... this is quite an old issue, but we need to discuss and understand polling vs. client-based updates 12:26:04 i|Applies|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/201 Issue 201 - Sequence diagrams for DID based discovery approaches| 12:26:07 ... if a device is behind a firewall, then we might only want to have a device make the update 12:26:24 ... if we have something like MQTT then we could @@@ 12:26:39 i|So one general|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/164 Issue 164 - Consider adding "poll hook" to registration (pull keepalive)| 12:26:43 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:26:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 12:26:51 ... (adds a comment to the issue) 12:27:06 q+ 12:27:17 kaz: Minor clarification question: 12:27:33 s/kaz: Minor clarification question:// 12:27:54 ... question also regarding heartbeats 12:28:02 s/... if we have something like MQTT then we could @@@// 12:28:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:28:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 12:28:56 ... (adds a link to issue 646 to the comment, which is related) 12:29:36 s/heartbeats/heartbeats, for example, there is more than one way to do this in MQTT/ 12:29:58 ... I believe our current mechanism for TTL does not require us to update the whole TD 12:30:22 ... (looks into the Discovery specification) 12:30:53 ... the mechanism to do a heartbeat is to submit an empty PATCH request 12:32:18 ... (mentions in the comment that this might too complicated and another API entry point might be needed for a Thing to "check in" and to check if a Thing is available) 12:32:55 ... so we have some metadata 12:33:21 ... "created", "modified", "expires", "ttl", "retrieved" 12:33:54 ... so there is some ambiguity here – if we send an empty PATCH request, should we update the "modified" date? 12:35:19 ... I am a bit concerned, that it might be ambiguous whether submitting an update that does not change the TD or only changes the TTL constitutes a modification 12:35:30 ... I think the document is not clear in this point 12:35:38 s/in/on/ 12:35:49 ... (further updates his comment) 12:36:03 s/updates/expands/ 12:36:22 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 12:36:23 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html JKRhb 12:37:46 q+ 12:38:07 ... the spec should clarify that, so any change should update the modified date 12:38:17 kaz: I agree and started to wonder 12:38:46 ... if I update a TD and a change impacts all consumers, should all consumers be informed about that? 12:39:05 s/TD/TTL of a TD/ 12:39:19 mm: Yeah, I think we had some discussion about that 12:39:22 s/that?/that? That is a question around notification capability./ 12:39:39 ... and wondered if we should add a notification API for that 12:40:31 ... we have an SSE in the document for that, but that is kind of awkward as you need to keep a connection open for that, so a WebHook might be better for that 12:40:45 kaz: Should be clarified in the 2.0 version 12:41:02 mm: Let me check if there is already an issue for that 12:41:17 ... I think this relates to issue 468 12:41:39 ... (adds a comment summarizing the discussion to that issue) 12:42:06 ... (mentions using MQTT for eventing in the comment) 12:42:22 ... has been a relatively recent discussion 12:42:32 ... the latest comment is from April of last year 12:42:52 ... is a topic of interest, but the answer is not as clear as "picking WebHooks" 12:43:04 ... we might not additional mechanisms, like MQTT 12:43:21 ... but that makes the implementation more complicated and potentially less interoperable 12:43:36 s/interoperable/compatible/ 12:43:49 s/the implementation/implementations/ 12:44:14 ... (further expands his comment) 12:44:48 ... (mentions that a TD could list the available mechanisms) 12:45:04 ... so in the document, we have the Events API 12:45:43 ... so currently, we have an event called thingCreated 12:46:05 s/Should be clarified in the 2.0 version/Should be clarified in the 2.0 version, but need some concrete Use Case description too./ 12:46:33 ... so for backward compatibility, we could add additional events for protocols or add additional forms 12:47:22 ... in addition to SSE 12:47:47 mm: I think I should label some of these issues as having a higher priority 12:48:07 ... what should the label be called? 12:48:53 ... let me also add a link from issue 164 to issue 464 (?) 12:49:10 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:49:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html JKRhb 12:49:41 s/ (?)// 12:50:08 mm: I think there are multiple answers here 12:50:38 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:50:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 12:50:45 ... one was that Ben was unsure how to this. In the specification, the TDD is not responsible to do this 12:51:23 ... in my original design, I was a thinking about a Registrar(?) who would register TDs with the directory 12:51:37 ... that could then be discovered by a discoverer 12:51:48 ... (adds a comment to issue 464 with a summary) 12:51:56 i|I think there|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/464 Issue 464 - How to keep Thing Descriptions updated in a Directory| 12:53:19 s/Registrar(?)/registrant/ 12:55:27 q+ 12:55:50 ack k 12:56:03 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:56:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 12:56:57 s/registrant/Registrar/ 12:58:33 ... the only problem is that the "Registrar" would need to know about which Things are registered, so it would act as a proxy, registering devices on their behalf 12:58:50 q+ 12:58:50 s/act/need to act/ 12:58:53 ack j 12:59:12 s/Registrar/"Registrar"/ 12:59:55 ... need to stop here, as we are out of time, need to figure out which ones relate to work items 13:00:21 ... next time, we need to organize better 13:00:59 kaz: If we really want to introduce a new role like "Registrar", we also need to define this very clearly 13:01:29 [adjourned] 13:01:38 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:01:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 13:02:10 i|[adjourned]|mm: Need to understand the problem more clearly, and understand if we need to introduce a new concept or can reuse an existing one| 13:02:16 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:02:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html JKRhb 13:41:21 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 15:02:09 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 15:26:26 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 15:28:43 Zakim has left #wot-discovery 17:28:03 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 17:56:39 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 19:58:00 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 20:19:29 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 20:36:54 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 20:47:19 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 21:06:37 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 21:48:15 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 21:52:16 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery 21:57:07 JKRhb has joined #wot-discovery