Meeting minutes
Minutes
minutes from 19 April 2023 call
Luca: (goes through the minutes)
… discussio about Testfest prep
… any objections?
none
approved
Retrospective
Lagally: (summarizes what happened so far)
… wrote a document on a strawman idea
Kaz: we should describe what we've done and what we should for the next step
Lagally: agree
<Tomo> +1 for kaz
Lagally: (shows the current WoT Profile Note)
Lagally: (goes through the WD)
… currently, we have HTTP Basic Profile, HTTP SSE Profile and HTTP Webhook Profile
… also we have remaining GitHub Issues
Lagally: Luca and myself went through those issues but didn't close anything
… in addition, there are several implementations
… from Ben and Siemens
Luca: also my implementation
<mlagally> https://
Lagally: and then, the testing area includes basic input for the potential Implementation Report (as above)
Lagally: happy to have Luca leading the discussion for WoT Profile now
Luca: would like to finalize WoT Profile 1.0 asap
… we should complete the WoT Profile with the current 3 profiles
… then could work on WoT Profile 2.0
… so that WoT Profile would fit improved TD/Binding
… my perception is that WoT Profile is still needed for WoT
… TD is powerful and flexible, but there is something that can't be described by TD only
Kaz: handling the WoT Profile 1.0 based on the current WD is one possibility
… but given we're already on the new Charter for WoT 2.0
… and the other TFs are working on spec refactoring to see what to be described by which spec
… I'd suggest we also should think about refactoring for WoT Profile spec too
Luca: as for Profile, we have something almost ready for publication (for 1.0 version)
… I'm sure WoT Profile 1.0 with some simple tweaks would be useful for interoperability purposes
… once we've finalized the WoT Profile 1.0 (as REC), we can work on WoT 2.0
<mlagally> +1
Daniel: sounds we want to have two separate tracks
… one is WoT Profile 1.0
… then WoT Profile 2.0 along with TD 2.0
… but not really sure about the timeline for WoT Profile 1.0
… we need to publish CR, PR and then REC
… and the procedure would take much longer than our expectation
… e.g., longer than 6 months
… is your expectation for the first option really making the current WD a W3C REC?
Luca: we can publish a CR in one month
… then we can publish a PR asis if there is no big change
… the procedure should not take long
… we need to clarify what is important here
… we should have a document ready for a Note, and a document good for a REC
Lagally: that's true we need refactoring of the documents
… but the scope of the WoT Profile itself has not changed
… WoT Profile spec itself is very important for interoperability purposes
Daniel: the problem I think is it's not really ready for a REC
… also have some conflicts with the TD spec
… HTTP basic profile might be OK, but how to handle the actions is still problematic
<mlagally> ++q
Daniel: so makes me a bit concerned
Lagally: can you document those issues?
Daniel: we've already documented them...
<Zakim> mlagally, you wanted to react to dape
Luca: wanted to see them beforehand
<dape> DP: parts of the issues I mentioned is in w3c/
Kaz: 3 comments
... 1. Technically, both (1) WoT Profile 1.0 nad (2) WoT Profile 2.0 (update) are listed on the new WoT WG Chareter, so we can work on that.
... 2. However, for that purpose, we as the WoT Profile TF need to clarify (a) What happened so far and (b) what we should/want to do by documenting them.
... 3. We also need to clarify if our proposal is feasible, and for that purpose, we should check the proposed schedule by the Milestone Caluculator.
… We as the WoT Profile TF need to document what we want to do
… then bring it to the whole WG
… and get approval as the WG plan
Mizushima: we need to refactor the WoT Profile document
… because the document structure at the moment is complicated unfortunately
… we need what is described by which document
… and also what to be standardized
Luca: Kaz's proposal sounds good
… let's give the topics priority
… we can solve the issues either by marking the profile compatibility barrier
… and see the feasibility
… regarding the problem around how to handle actions, the problem should be discussed for WoT 2.0
… WoT Profile 1.0 to be served for TD 1.1
… even though the usage is restricted
<kaz> s/TD 1.0/TD 1.1/
Luca: if there is any compatibility issue, we have to solve it
… something may not be able to be handled properly with WoT Profile 1.0, but that's OK
Lagally: my proposal is closing the issues marked as "Profile 1.0"
… then think about the next steps
… get a solid WD candidate and publish it as an updated WD
Kaz: clarification question
… what do you mean by "closing"?
… just closing?
… or discuss them and address them, and then close them?
Lagally: latter
Kaz: ok
… given we only have 2 more minutes, we should clarify the next steps
… who to do what?
Luca: ok
… Daniel, please clarify problems from your viewpoint
… I also would like to clarify my points too
Kaz: all, please document your proposals
Lagally: when to meet next?
… in two weeks?
Luca: have to look into the calendar
… next week is not good anyway
Lagally: next 2 weeks, I'd say
Luca: will meet on Apr-9
Kaz: AC meeting on April 8-9
… let's have the discussion on the schedule by email
Luca: ok, please give your input
[adjourned]