Meeting minutes
TD Errata
<kaz> PR 2023 - Fixes to Errata Documents
Ege: slightly updated the PR 2023
… (goes through the updated PR 2023)
Ege: I have removed scripts, added how to main the document section
Koster: this can be automated later
Ege: we can look at this one and the arch and discovery in the next main call
Koster: do we need resolution?
Kaz: we can do so and bring to main call
proposal: agree to update the errata document for TD 1.0 and 1.1 by merging PR at w3c/
RESOLUTION: agree to update the errata document for TD 1.0 and 1.1 by merging PR at w3c/
Binding Templates
Registry
<kaz> Registry mechanism Analysis
Ege: we have a draft PR for the requirements
<kaz> wot PR 1183 - Registry Requirements Revision
Koster: we can render to view this new section
<kaz> Rendered Readme.md
Ege: we have the point with TODO, then we have points with not enough text
Koster: we have todo on where the registry should live
Ege: if it is a section, it is mechanically more difficult to update
Koster: any questions?
Ege: not having it in the td spec means maintaining a document close to the TD spec
Kaz: we can keep working on this document
Koster: I tend towards having a separate document
Ege: are we allowed to have a registry track document since it is not mentioned in the charter?
<kaz> W3C Process Document
<kaz>
A registry report or registry section is purely documentational,
is not subject to the W3C Patent Policy, and must not contain any
requirements on implementations. For the purposes of the Patent Policy
[PATENT-POLICY], any registry section in a Recommendation track document
is not a normative portion of that specification.
<Ege>
Registries can be published either as a stand-alone technical report
on the Registry Track called a registry report, or incorporated as part of
a Recommendation as a registry section.
Kaz: registries are documentational and are not subject to patent policy
Koster: so the main question is whether we can have a separate document
Ege: Does anyone object to having a separate document for registry if W3C process allows it?
Luca: IPR is a bit confusing here?
Luca: whether a binding is in rec section table or a separate document, the policy doesnt matter
Koster: we should definitely have a layered registry
… coap is used differently in ocf and lwm2m, ocf uses post and lwm2m uses a put to writeproperty
Koster: bindings should be identifiable
Ege: an ocf or lwm2m binding would be difficult to identify just from form elements
… also has other requirements
Koster: A profile can be useful in that case
… but we need to define the profile first
Luca: (didn't understand the first point, please extend)
Luca: we need to understand how to compose bindings
… also I would deprecate subprotocol and have a term called protocol and thus make everything explicit
… subprotocol is a "papercut" I have found
Luca: I would love to talk about degraded consumption
<kaz> [adjourned]