14:12:16 RRSAgent has joined #wot 14:12:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-irc 14:12:26 rrsagent, make minutes 14:12:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html yingying 14:12:36 s/How/Kajimoto: How/ 14:13:36 Matthias: we need metadata that describes life cycle transitions and states 14:14:01 TD has a life cycle also 14:14:40 Sebastian: we are discussing 14:15:09 Daniel: should there be a separate security section 14:15:26 rrsagent, make log public 14:15:50 Johannes: it's good to have security statements in the descriptions of how we do things also? 14:15:56 Dave: in the intro also? 14:16:21 BIndings 14:16:50 rrsagent, make minutes 14:16:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html yingying 14:17:16 Johannes: this is to explain to developers how to adapt protocols to the WoT environment 14:18:04 Johannes: each protocol has some important features that need consideration in the binding, the protocol experts should be involved 14:18:18 Soumya: oneM2M has a protocol binding system 14:18:48 Dave: other groups also have protocol bindings 14:19:22 Johannes: bindings to protocols or frameworks, the scope of it is bigger 14:19:39 JOhannes: there may be some confusion around this 14:20:11 Claes: not sure how this impacts our scope, could it be huge? 14:20:20 oneM2M - HTTP protocol binding - http://www.onem2m.org/images/files/deliverables/TS-0009-HTTP_Protocol_Binding-V1_0_1.pdf 14:20:26 Claes: more th escope of the target organization 14:20:43 oneM2M - MQTT protocol binding - http://www.onem2m.org/images/files/deliverables/TS-0010-MQTT_protocol_binding-V1_0_1.pdf 14:21:01 Dave: the 2 have to work together somehow, from both sides, leave it open to joint determination with each organization 14:21:30 Johannes: the main output should be how you create a binding to a protocol or a framework 14:22:10 Dave: we could have informative docs as well to help with this 14:22:51 Matthias: specifically, we want to coordinate and give guidance but not make the documents 14:23:24 Dave: we should collaborate on the framework-specific documents 14:24:05 Soumya: we could review the oneM2M bindings in TF-AP 14:24:20 Johannes: we could work one level up from this 14:24:51 Dave: bindings to platforms and protocols, orgs we work with 14:25:40 Claes: What about e.g. websockets, who will make the bindings? 14:26:01 Dave: we could charter another activity if needed 14:26:34 Dave: IETF, OASIS, etc. could get involved and help 14:27:47 Johannes: it could be a huge space to try to write binding specifications 14:28:19 Johannes, we could statr the work informatively and ask SDOs to pick up the normative work 14:30:41 Louay: could use uri-beacon for pointing to a TD, and provide some basic mapping 14:31:22 Matthias: some protocols can be mapped, some protocols need to be modified or have a shim layer added which is out of scope for W3C 14:32:53 Johannes: this is about who writes the normative text. It's much better if the SDOs do this 14:34:59 Johannes: we need to make it very clear what is needed to be done to bind a protocol or platform to WoT 14:36:20 Dave: as a matter of scope, we need to be precise about what we are going to do. For example, we could decide to work with SDOs to identify changes 14:36:41 Joerg: do this in the context od collaboration 14:38:14 Kaz: we have identified target platforms in the landscape documents, can we mention these in the document 14:38:57 Joerg: worried about making a list, what message does it sent to orgs that aren't on the list? 14:39:25 i|Joerg:|-> https://w3c.github.io/wot/landscape.html Landscape document| 14:40:02 Dave: we should be able to refer to some examples 14:41:06 Matthias: should id be a scope issue vs. a logo collection 14:42:37 Matthias: transfer vs. transport 14:43:02 -> https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/51 Michael issue on github about transfer protocol 14:43:20 Johannes: this will appear in the collaborations with other organizations 14:44:20 Dave: if important protocols or platforms need changes, we would need to take action, what is the action as scope definition 14:44:52 Joerg: what is in scope, out of scope, for example a shim layer is between scope 14:45:45 all agree we don't do protocols 14:47:14 Dave: the charter is expected to provide limited detail on the deliverables 14:47:36 Dave: and timelines, e.g. first public draft 14:49:34 Joerg: should the deliverables tie back to the scope, and be consistent with what is there 14:50:14 Dave: what is the new W3C charter template? 14:50:53 Joerg: is it about completion ? 14:51:26 Dave: more toward first WG draft as a milestone 14:51:33 -> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html TV Control WG charter 14:53:45 Dave: non-normative deliveraables also 14:56:46 Joerg: add scenarios for cross-platform 14:57:43 Matthias: add architecture document as informative reference 14:57:53 Dave: could be kept as IG document 14:58:33 Dave: binding examples? 14:59:01 Dave: requirements could be IG document 14:59:46 Joerg: normative vs. official/unofficial 15:00:09 Matthias: IG can publish an official informative documants 15:00:26 Dave: IG can do the informative work 15:00:45 Dave: maybe bindings should be a WG product 15:01:10 Joerg: also the primer could be a WG deliverable 15:03:47 Matthias: the intention is to cover a broad range in TD without needing a lot of other logic 15:05:18 Joerg: specify the relationship of the WG to the IG 15:05:42 Done with Charter review 15:07:28 Joerg: At some point the comment phase is done when the number of comments is reduced and we have more confidence 15:08:15 Joerg: We should repeat the run-through as needed 15:08:50 Joerg: set a reasonable time frame, have a webconf run-through 15:08:59 Dave: hard to do this in one week 15:09:05 Joerg: 3 weeks? 15:09:40 Joerg: ask for input, incorporate comments, have the ren-through 15:10:30 Claes: email is not usually effective 15:10:40 Joerg: github issues 15:10:53 all agree on using github issues 15:11:10 Johannes: send email when you post an issue 15:13:30 Dave: members of IG get feedback from their company/org/community to insure there is a broad level of support 15:14:06 Joerg: both company internal, and outreach to the community 15:14:53 Joerg: can we get an indication from everyone on whether your company would join the WG 15:15:19 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting_2016,_April,_11th_-_13th,_Montreal,_Canada#Wednesday.2C_13th_of_April.2C_WoT_IG_Meeting Day2 agenda 15:15:22 Joerg: how should we proceed with the meeting today? 15:16:27 Joerg: focus on topics for the rest of the day 15:16:45 Joerg: rest of the contribution from Fujitsu 15:16:56 Joerg: BLE mapping 15:17:37 Joerg: start on the bindings scenario document 15:17:57 Joerg: those 3 items, are there others? 15:17:57 toru has joined #wot 15:18:25 Joerg: should we split into 3 groups next? 15:22:05 [ Room assignment will be put on the wiki ] 15:27:11 [ morning break ] 15:27:12 Claes_ has joined #wot 15:35:21 dsr has joined #wot 15:50:47 jeff has joined #wot 15:51:10 yingying_ has joined #wot 16:03:07 scribe: yingying_ 16:03:46 topic: Contribution of Fujitsu on Architecture@PK1140 16:04:28 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Apr/att-0022/WoT_architecture_update_160412.pdf Fujitsu's presentation 16:04:35 s/presentation/slides/ 16:04:49 @1: Maybe many protocols can be converted to this Legacy Device API. 16:05:35 Johannes: The procotol mapping would be the same? The difference is in the adaptation to legacy device? 16:07:45 ...common APIs would be on top of the protocol mapping. Examples would be helpful. 16:08:15 Claes: I don't have strong opinion on it. I am wondering the purpose of the diagram. 16:09:14 s/@1/Matsukura:/ 16:09:30 Johannes: Where is the line to map the legacy protocol to protocol mapping layer. 16:10:01 Claes: do we need to have the resource manager layer? it's the implementation. 16:10:49 Johannes: This resource management is not about the CPU/memory management. 16:12:15 ...I'm not very sure where the TD is pointed. It could be here in the diagram or one or two layer higher. 16:12:55 Matsukura: This slide shows the resource management. 16:12:56 i/Maybe many/Matsukura: page 12/ 16:13:10 i/This/Matsukura: page 13/ 16:13:21 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:13:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html kaz 16:15:09 ...the meta data instance is for device. 16:16:40 ...next slide for protocol mapping. 16:17:34 kaz: TD metadata part specifies the basic device capability whle the TD instance part specifies the information to identify concrete devices installed at some place, e.g., the user and the location 16:17:46 ...we can implement the Device interface. 16:18:14 i|next slide for protocol mapping|Matsukura: p14| 16:18:31 s|kaz: TD metadata part specifies the basic device capability whle the TD instance part specifies the information to identify concrete devices installed at some place, e.g., the user and the location|| 16:19:15 i|p14|kaz: TD metadata part specifies the basic device capability whle the TD instance part specifies the information to identify concrete devices installed at some place, e.g., the user and the location| 16:19:19 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:19:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html kaz 16:19:37 ...this slide shows the App script provider. App script calls the script provider and the script provider will use the information in TD to call the protocol mapping interfaces and then communication protocol APIs. 16:20:15 i/we need metadata that describes/scribenick: mivhaell/ 16:20:17 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:20:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html kaz 16:20:21 ...p16 shows the communication protocol layer. 16:20:46 i/we need metadata that describes/scribenick: mivhael/ 16:20:47 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:20:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html kaz 16:22:41 i/this slide shows the App script/Matsukura: p15/ 16:22:43 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:22:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html kaz 16:25:22 ...p17 is the summary. 16:28:23 Joerg: if you are on your local thing, does the local thing have the resource management. 16:30:03 ...is there anything that you don't know how to find the resource. It is expected to be internal. 16:33:07 Johannes: what should we standardize between resource management and protocol mapping. 16:35:48 ...the red line of API should be between resource management and protocol mapping. 16:40:41 [some discussions on balance what is TD and what is in protocol mapping] 16:42:48 s/what is TD/what is in TD/ 16:47:07 Joerg: now we need to visualize this two ways instead of just discussion. 16:47:53 katsu has joined #wot 16:49:38 Kaz: maybe we can create a github issue of the architecture document for this. 16:52:09 Johannes: we should really write down this question whether the app script should know the protocol mapping. For my implementation, the app script does not know the protocol mapping. 16:55:49 ...if several protocols are supported, should the client decides which protocol to use or should the server side decides it. 16:56:08 ...for these kind of questions, it would be good that we could visualize them. 16:56:48 ...it is confusing to me what the legacy device API refers to. Is it the protocol to talk to the device API? 16:57:02 rrsagent, make minutes 16:57:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html yingying_ 17:00:13 Kaz: given that the upper layer on top of legacy device API and WoT API is communication protocol, it is confusing that they are called APIs. 17:03:25 ...maybe we can just simply say legacy protocol and WoT protocol instead of legacy device API and WoT API. 17:04:28 ...we should think about the concrete APIs between resource management and protocol mapping. 17:04:47 Johannes: we should also consider the north bound API and south bound API. 17:05:22 s/north bound/northbound/ 17:05:33 s/south bound/southbound/ 17:07:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:07:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html kaz 17:08:58 Johannes: for the next step, could we have ppt version as the ground? In next call, we could discuss on it further. 17:12:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:12:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html kaz 18:00:24 dsr has joined #wot 18:01:12 yingying has joined #wot 18:01:37 Topic: W3C "Web of Things" Logistics 18:01:43 scribenick: dsr 18:01:58 katsu has joined #wot 18:02:22 Joerg shows the topics for this afternoon’s session. 18:02:39 - report from the communications & collaboration task force 18:02:59 - draft WoT WG charter and WoT IG charter 18:03:07 - IG perspective 18:03:14 - deliverables/documents 18:03:21 - plugfest preparation 18:03:33 - meeting logistics 18:04:45 Karen has joined #wot 18:04:46 Joerg invites Yingying to talk about the communications and collaboration task force. 18:06:34 slides at: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/8/88/Communication%26Collaboration_Report_Apr2016.pdf 18:07:20 The task force was set up to strengthen awareness of the technical and business benefits of the Web of Things. 18:08:58 rrsagent, draft minutes 18:08:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html kaz 18:09:04 Joerg runs through the resposibilities of the task force. 18:09:27 we're now wrapping up the meeting 18:09:39 s/we're now wrapping up the meeting// 18:09:54 The talk on behalf of the eclipse foundation relates to our goal to reach out to the open source and maker communities. 18:10:59 The W3C Business Development team need help with outreach and recruitment - which will bring fresh resources to the work we are doing. 18:12:06 Please help the task force in its aims 18:12:10 Karen has joined #wot 18:13:06 Since the last F2F, we prioritized and supported events relevant to the W3C web of things. 18:13:44 Yingying has added testimonials to the WoT landing page, we plan improvements in their presentation. 18:14:27 This F2F in Montreal is the first time we’ve been hosted by an external group. 18:14:45 We need to work to prepare for our next F2F in July in Beijing 18:15:10 We’ve had liaisons with alliances and SDOs, e.g. OCF and OPC 18:15:28 Some pointers and more detail are in the slides 18:16:39 We’ve been collecting testimonials from IG members and are now also seeking to get testimonials from SDOs and alliances 18:17:36 Joerg turns to the topic of the Beijing F2F in July 18:20:07 This will have 2 days of open meetings followed by 2 days for the IG internal discussions. 18:20:32 Sebastian has joined #wot 18:21:03 Yingying explains that CETC hosts the China IoT alliance and we expect to have talks from key people along with demos and talks from IG members. 18:21:19 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing July f2f wiki 18:22:00 Joerg talks about pros and cons for having the senior/business people on either the first or the second day. 18:22:23 Yingying: we need to finalise this soon. 18:22:41 Jeff Jaffe: I like the idea of exposing people to the plugfest demos 18:23:15 This is also an opportunity to introduce industry people in China to the work we’re doing. 18:23:50 Yingying: we need a good estimate for the number of people who will attend from the IG 18:24:32 thanks kaz for the information 18:24:51 Joerg: the number of F2F participants has depended on the location, travel restrictions and conflicting events. 18:26:26 We need to clarify the expectations of the local people as to the ordering and nature of the open days. 18:26:40 s/Jeff Jaffe:/Jeff_Jaffe:/ 18:27:26 Johannes: the way we’ve had our plugfests isn’t so good for non-technical people 18:27:57 Joerg: perhaps we can set it up so that the visitors can be given a guided explanation as they move between demos 18:28:42 Jeff: we need to be sensitive to making ourselves easy to understand, e.g. speak slow and simple and give clear elevator pitches 18:28:54 Karen has joined #wot 18:29:49 Dave: perhaps we could provide some written descriptions of the plugfest demos prior to the event? 18:30:09 This could help with making our work easier to understand 18:31:11 Joerg: we need a contact person for the plugfest. This especially important for the network issues we’ve had, e.g. in Montreal. 18:32:02 Yingying: if you can provide us with the requirements we can take that on. 18:32:35 Karen has joined #wot 18:32:45 Dave: this is likely to involve testing the site network and negotiating arrangements for us to set up an effective demo network. 18:33:14 Joerg: we’ve had problems here at UQAM with the network blocking our gateway. 18:34:45 Yingying: the July F2F wiki page is still very rough and will change considerably 18:35:19 Joerg displays a slide on liaisons. 18:36:09 Matthias summarises the joint OCF/W3C/T2TRG meeting in California 18:37:19 OCF for instance currently use RAML for describing their APIs and we have a good chat about the extra value that thing descriptions can offer. 18:38:50 dsr: provides some more supplementary information 18:39:55 mkovatsc has joined #wot 18:39:58 Dave summarises the IAB workshop on semantic interoperability 18:40:57 There were some good discussions about the technical challenges for both semantic interoperability and end to end security 18:41:44 We will be able to build upon this, e.g. in the joint white paper on semantic interoperability, and another on trust assumptions in relation to end to end security 18:42:47 The IAB set up a mailing list, and wiki on GitHub to continue the dialogue 18:42:50 https://github.com/iotsi 18:43:31 Joerg: we need to clarify what we need to do next 18:44:24 Both in respect to recuiting people to the WoT activity, and also in respect to open source projects and the maker community events relating to th web of things. 18:45:07 Joerg: if you participate in the plugfest, you should aim to provide open source implementation and documentation. 18:45:31 We want to encourage multiple independent implementations 18:47:29 The next teleconference for the IG as a whole will be on 18 May at 0600 EDT, 12:00 EU, 1800 China and 1900 Japan 18:48:35 Joerg encourages more people to join the communications and collaboration task force 18:48:50 s/IG as a whole/communications and collaboration task force/ 18:50:05 Joerg asks for how many IG companies have provided testimonials so far? 18:50:14 Yingying: 6 18:50:43 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/ WoT landing page 18:50:45 Topic: Working Group Charter 18:51:20 We had 2 commenting rounds from the last F2F, and a very productive discussion this morning. 18:51:57 Joerg summarises the outcome of those discussions. 18:52:38 We need to use github issues to track the issues raised today, starting with the points from today’s minutes as written by Michael. 18:52:48 -> https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues github issues 18:52:54 A revised draft of the charter by May 4 18:53:09 Telecon to discuss the draft on May `` 18:53:37 s/``/11/ 18:53:37 Finalised draft WG charter by May 18 for discussion outside of the IG 18:53:47 rrsagent, draft minutes 18:53:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html kaz 18:54:23 Jeff: when will the charter be ready for AC Review? 18:54:42 Joerg: Summer? 18:55:04 Jeff: it would be good to aim to have a WG meeting at TPAC 18:55:50 AC Review is itself 4 weeks, but may take longer depending on the comments received 19:00:42 The July F2F will be an opportunity for any final adjustments to the WG charter. 19:01:10 Dave: we are tentatively planning for a joint IG/WG meeting at TPAC. 19:01:53 Dave cites the experience of the Web Payments IG spawning a WG as illustrative of what we’re going through 19:02:11 Jeff provides details of the Web Payments IG/WG story 19:02:36 Jeff: working back from a deadline can help to force the pace. 19:03:30 Karen has joined #wot 19:03:52 Dave: we need to work in sync on outreach, open source and liaisons, in order to get the broad support for the WG in place before the AC Review 19:05:21 Jeff is supportive of the idea of a joint meeting at TPAC even if the WG hasn’t yet been formally launched. It would be a good opportunity to gather a broad set of stakeholders and build support. 19:06:33 Johannes asks Dave about the schedule for the open source work and what needs to be done 19:07:24 Dave: we need complete implementations, documentation and demos ready along with outreach to the relevant communities. The July F2F open days provide a good target to drive that work towards. 19:08:09 kaz: would make sense to have rough expected schedule till TPAC 2016 in September 19:08:23 Joerg: we’ve already chatted about the idea of starter kits for the web of things 19:08:57 Topic: Rechartering the Interest Group 19:09:12 Joerg: displays a screen shot of the charter which ran out on March 31 19:10:32 Joerg explains the value of continuing the IG in parallel with the WG 19:11:02 We need to clarify the respective roles of the IG and WG 19:12:32 dsr: summarizes the background 19:14:56 michael: we can continue plugfest, etc., using the IG? 19:14:58 dsr: yes 19:14:58 Claes has joined #wot 19:18:07 Karen has joined #wot 19:19:35 Dave gives a short rationale - the IG would work on open scope topics including the plugfests, technical stuff that is not yet mature enough to standardise, and outreach to external groups. The IG would have a very narrow focus on driving a few specs along the REC track 19:19:59 Johannes: I’m worried that we won’t have enought manpower to do both groups 19:20:56 Dave: this is why we’re working on convincing companies to get involved and grow the manpower available 19:20:57 s/enought/enough/ 19:21:43 Jeff: if companies feel this is important and if they are doing implementation work they presumably will, then they can be expected to provide aditional manpower 19:22:04 s/aditional/additional/ 19:24:02 Joerg: building strong relationships with industry alliances and SDOs is critical, and very important role for the IG. The IG also can look at the work that needs more study. 19:24:41 Karen has joined #wot 19:24:55 We can look at the range of topics we’ve already raised and identify those the IG should plan for. 19:25:42 Jeff: six weeks ago I presented a keynote at the Industry of Things World conference in San Diego. 19:26:05 There was strong support for W3C’s role in enabling interoperability across platforms 19:26:40 During the recent Advisory Committee meeting, we asked Members to name the next big things. 19:27:21 Web Security was the highest followed by th Web of Things. This work is essential, so I want to push back on the notion that this is a fringe activity 19:27:41 Joerg: we need to clarify the next steps. 19:29:06 Jeff: today at the opening of the WWW2016 conference, Tim Berners-Lee provided the opening keynote and covered the web of things. So yet more support! 19:30:00 Joerg: we need to brainstorm on formulating the relationship between the IG and WG 19:31:00 Matthias: it would make sense to co-locate the IG and WG meetings and it would be worth thinking about the logistics for that 19:32:11 Kaz: precedent set by automotive Business Group and the Working Group it spawned. They co-locate with consecutive meetings. 19:33:02 Matthias: perhaps we can focus more on decision making at the meetings and do more work remotely 19:34:00 Jeff: in practice there will be different people in an IG and WG with just a few in both. 19:35:43 I don’t think we can extend the charter duration for the IG unless we have a strong plan in place for rechartering within a few months and planning for a charter of at least a year and perhaps longer 19:36:39 Present+ Claes_Nilsson 19:36:45 -> www.w3.org/2014/12/wot-ig-charter.html WoT IG Charter 19:37:52 Dave: we have the precedent of the web payments and automative groups to guide us in drafting a revised IG charter 19:39:55 Jeff reads from the existing charter. This already envisions the IG launching work into existing or new WGs 19:41:10 Joerg summarises 19:44:55 Dave notes the need to start planning for dialog with other W3C groups, e.g. on security 19:46:58 The IG charter should cover this 19:47:51 Kaz raises the idea of having some work in Community Groups 19:48:46 Dave: the broadly scope CG hasn’t got any traction. Narrowly scoped CGs could be a future option for incubating specific ideas. 19:50:41 Joerg wraps up the discussion. We will set deadlines in upcoming telecons 19:51:31 s/Kaz raises the idea of having some work in Community Groups/Kaz also suggests the IG should think about what to be done by the IG side in addition to what to be done by the WG, and mentions there is a possibility the CG could be used instead of the IG if there is something to do but not for the IG after launching the WG/ 19:52:43 Jeff suggests we think about the manpower for the leadership for the WG/IG as well 19:53:08 Topic: Deliverables 19:53:55 Joerg reviews the work items we’re doing 19:54:45 These include the use case document, tech landscape document, architecture document and current practice document. 19:55:22 We’ve agreed to June 10 for freezing the current practice document for the July plugfest. 19:57:08 Joerg reviews plans for the plugfest. Three topics for discussion included client interface for discovery, datatypes and formulation of the protocol binding 20:00:00 Matthias summarises the work on thing description support for protocol bindings 20:02:00 Joerg looks t the practical logistics. For example, a developer how-to, participation info, network setup and prior testing. 20:02:30 s/looks t/looks at/ 20:02:42 We need some pre-testing to reduce the time we otherwise have to spend during the meeting 20:03:14 We would like to define a specific configuration that people can test against before travelling to the F2F. 20:04:12 Daniel: we need to have someone responsible for defining the configuration. 20:05:20 Joerg looks for a volunteer [the room falls silent] 20:06:04 Soumya: perhaps the people who are involved in IETF meetings could provide advice 20:07:19 Dave: likewise, I could ask the W3C systems team who have considerable experience with preparations for TPAC. However, we need someone to take responsibiity within the IG 20:07:56 Michael agrees to look after the router set up config file. 20:08:31 Daniel agrees to look after the network requirements 20:09:14 Yingying will look after the local support for the networking and other logistics 20:10:43 Joerg: we need the local team in Beijing to conduct some tests in advance of the meeting. 20:11:07 We want things online by end of May. 20:11:30 Joerg: finally we need to review how we work between face to face meetings 20:11:47 Topic: logistics 20:12:20 Joerg: we may want to reconsider the slots for the regular calls 20:12:51 We may switch from task forces to a topic oriented assignment of call slots 20:13:56 With the agenda announced a week in advance 20:15:56 Joerg suggests we have our next call on Wednesday April 20 at 2PM CET 20:16:12 What are the proposed agenda items? 20:18:06 Sebastian suggests we need more time and should start the call the following week 20:20:10 Joerg says we will have the call on April 20, but not on Thursday April 21 20:20:52 s/not/*not*/ 20:21:46 The next F2F is 11-14 July 2016 in Beijing, and the following one in Lisobon in September as part of TPAC. 20:22:55 Some of us may meet up during the IETF 96 in Berlin on 16 July. 20:25:13 Matthias: could we look into the logistics for a joint meeting with the T2TRG on Saturday 24-25. 20:25:32 s/Septem/22-23 Septem/ 20:26:29 Dave & Kaz should ask Coralie about the possible availability of rooms 20:27:03 This should also include the idea of a plugfest preparation room 20:28:13 s/Lisobon in/Lisbon on/ 20:28:38 The plugfest would be on the 22nd 20:30:07 Dave: there is an opportunity for demos on the plenary day (Wed 21 Sep) 20:32:06 Joerg: let’s keep that open for now 20:32:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 20:32:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html kaz 20:32:41 https://summit.riot-os.org/ 20:32:56 Matthias the IETF 96 meeting will be combined with a RIOT OS summit 20:33:23 s/for now/for now; the basic requirement is having a preparation room on 21st./ 20:36:02 s/summit/summit on July 16/ 20:37:01 Dave: we could perhaps plan for distributed demonstrations! 20:38:41 Alan has joined #wot 20:39:44 Joerg: we should consider planning the follow on F2F in North America 20:40:54 Jeff: we should consider who are the biggest US companies we want to get involved in the WoT activity 20:41:37 for instance Cisco, General Electric, browser companies, etc. 20:42:33 Joerg: Intel would be another possibility 20:42:43 -> https://www.w3.org/2015/07/29-30-31-wot-minutes.html Sunnyvale meeting minutes, fyi 20:43:21 Joerg: this is something we can take forward as a pending action 20:43:46 Michael: I will look into this on behalf of Samsung 20:45:12 Dave: Google could be interesting, we have a standing invitation for them to present their work on Brillo/Weave when it is fully public. 20:45:36 Michael: a joint meeting with schema.org is another possibility 20:46:24 Joerg: we now done - thanks for coming to this meeting and talk to you next week! 20:47:53 Kaz: one last point, we did talk about switching to a US based time slot rather than Europe based slot 20:48:48 This only effects the two weeks twice a year when North America and Europe are out of sync 20:49:54 Kaz: China, Japan and Korea don’t change their clocks, i.e. fixed relative to UTC 20:50:09 Dave: we could fix to UTC then? 20:52:21 Fixing to North America would reduce risk of clashes with other meetings during the 4 weeks a year when the clocks are out of sync 20:52:48 Joerg brings the meeting to an end 20:52:55 rrsagent, make minutes 20:52:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html dsr 21:44:33 kamiya has joined #wot 22:26:18 yingying has joined #wot 22:45:12 Alan has joined #wot 22:45:28 JAB has joined #wot 22:51:21 yingying has joined #wot 22:54:06 Alan has joined #wot 23:01:02 JAB has joined #wot 23:17:38 yingying has joined #wot 23:19:26 Alan has joined #wot 23:26:44 yingying_ has joined #wot 23:46:15 dsr has joined #wot