01 Jun 2016


See also: IRC log


Kaz, Dave, Michael, Achille, Daniel, Katsuyoshi, Sebastian, Joerg, Johannes, Kazuaki, Masato, Matthias, Ryuichi, Takuki, Toru, Victor, Yingying, Yun, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Carsten, Kazuo


<scribe> scribe: dape

<scribe> scribeNick: DP

<inserted> scribenick: dape

Quick Status Updates

MK: Any quick issue?
... none heard

F2F Beijing

YY: Send out information for F2F

<kaz> f2f wiki

YY: Email contains all information about registering

<Yingying> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Room_Reservation

YY: please fill in form.. deadline is 24th June
... there is limited number of rooms
... also, please register for meeting
... moreover, for VISA there is information as well on wiki page
... detailed agenda for first 2 days is on wiki also

MK: Any more information w.r.t network setup?

YY: network should be OK, no credentials needed
... we still need to test our requirements

<dsr> with support for wifi and cabled Ethernet

YY: Daniel proposed test tool

DP: will provide test tool soon

Koster: looked into VPN as well..
... need to check whether VPN is possible as well? could send pre-configured RASPI
... could I send the device or is it blocked?

YY: There are some website outside China which we can't access

Koster: we should check whether some webpages work as well...
... should have fallback... e.g., with VPN

MK: should also try router and connect it to the network...

YY: Switch?

MK: a basic Wifi router

Koster: local network maybe better also

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Requirements PlugFest Requirements wiki

DP: should collect requirements on wiki

DR: peer-to-peer messaging also important! Does tool handle that?

Koster: local network could be a solution

DP: p2p might be more tricky...

YY: guideline might be good

Kaz: Daniel could work on guideline...

Daniel: Will try...

Kaz: Should fix requirements table as soon as possible
... Soumya might be planning remote plugfest participation..

YY: will check with Soumya

Architecture document

<kaz> WoT Architecture

Toru shows Architecture document

Toru: document is on github and has 7 chapters
... 1. introduction
... 2. Terminology
... 3. chapter is about requirements... general info about flexibility, compatibiliyt, and safety
... please comment if you have issues
... 4. chapter is about scenarios
... Nimurasan worked on those scenarios
... inside home but also outside home
... also variations whether to have home hub instead of direct connection
... other scenarios through proxy in cloud
... other scenario is about factory and connected car ... both need gateway
... finally thing-to-thing scenario (e.g, sensor to air conditioner)
... 5. chapter is about "mapping variations"
... similar to 4... but more detailed behavior is explained
... e.g. fig 14, between gateway and cloud
... 6. chapter is about WoT servient
... also handles interfaces... discovery, server, ..
... also propitiatory API
... 7. Conclusion

Nimurasan: based on scenario section I updated use-case document..

<kaz> Use Case document

Nimurasan: I added smart home scenario

Kaz: we should clarify relationship between use-case and architecture document
... could simple merge them
... or have separate documents ...
... use-case scenario section should be before requirements section
... use-cases in architecture document could go right after terminology

Toru: use-cases more user perspective while scenarios more deployment

Kaz: scenario should be part of use-case description.. if it's rather description on concrete deployed systems, the title here (which is currently "Scenarios") should be something like that (deployed system images)

Toru: could you make pull-request Kaz?

Kaz: Also, content of Section 4 should appear before requirements section

<Zakim> dsr, you wanted to ask about clarifying role of firewall for smart homes in the architecture and to clarify whether we expect electronic appliances to be WoT servients, or not? and

Dave: document shows firewall...
... what about smart meters ... clarify firewall role
... Fig1. shows WoT Server ... WoT should show that we also support devices that not support WoT per se
... lots of discussion about sensor networks...
... also home health care .. where to put it, in the arch-document or use-cases?

Toru: w.r.t. scenario we don't want to exclude non WoT devices... there are just examples

Dave: could say "each example illustrates ..."

Toru: do you propose referencing use-case documents..

Dave: Yes, .. need to say why we have those scenarios and not others in arch document

<k_nimura> q

Johannes: use cases speaks about domains.. while arch-document talks about deployment
... need to clarify this difference

<dsr> we need to explain the criteria for including the examples in the architecture document, to say that we are not excluding other kinds of examples, but these are covered in the use cases document

<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask if "firewall" is really a necessarily component of the system architecture

Kaz: wonder whether terminology "firewall" is needed.. suggest removing it
... rather think about security and privacy separately.

Dave: IPv4 and IPv6 ... and firewall.. important for architecture..

Kaz: currently we have just one statement about firewall ... detailed explanation should go into dedicated section

<dsr> some possible additions include healthcare, smart meters, sensor network examples and telemetry

Nimurasan: Fig14 tries to show combination of servient
... firewall is not tackled here... should remove it

Torusan: can remove "firewall" here

Kaz: need more information somewhere else

Dave: Also IPv4, IPV6 issues et cetera
... who are we targeting with this document?
... technical audience. not sure.. not enough technical details

<kaz> kaz: would suggest we talk with Kajimoto-san :)

Kaijmoto: security is important

<k_nimura> q

Kaijmoto: we should add deliverable to WG ... continue to discuss it in WG
... Security seems an endless issue

<michael> I need to drop off for board meeting, thanks

Dave: yes, but people will look at W3C how we handle it
... agree, we don't need to handle it in this document

<dsr> I agree that we don’t need to handle security and privacy in this document, at least not now

Taki: order of chapters: definition of WoT serviant in terminology section.. in section 6 the details are given
... information should come earlier

Toru: I agree

Kaijmoto: makes sense

Taki: will create issue or PR

<mkovatsc> ack

MK: level of details is OK... more should come later... maybe in other WG document

Nimurasan: propose closing document in IG... and work in WG again

MK: yes, we plan to release document soon...
... please add issues to github... so that editors can work on the final comments...
... release planned for mid of June

Current Practices document

MK: Johannes updated scripting API

<kaz> current practices document

MK: also talked with Sebastian... w.r.t. to new type system
... are there any issue / comment w.r.t. to this document?

Kaz: got MMI wg request? Should we have github PRs?

MK: Yes, can discuss PR?
... direct commit should be avoided


MK: fixed critical issues in charters
... no todos left
... think ready to share with others
... one remaining issue: missing text for figure (relation between WG and IG)

<kaz> draft IG Charter

<kaz> draft WG Charter

MK: we have figure in IG charter... and we have also text there
... should we have text in WG charter as well?

Dave: Payment wg had similar issue... lets refer from WG to IG text

MK: Will do so..
... IG charter issue: test interoperability issue (discussion on mailinglist)

<dsr> Is the following “take part in interoperability experiments across implementations for ideas at different levels of maturity”

Dave: Jonathan wanted some explanation..
... is the proposed text OK?

MK: Good for me

Dave: will reach out to Jonathan and check
... plan to show IG charter next Wednesday.. make comments quickly..

Kaz: there are 2 locations IG charter mentions testing... should try to converge on mailinglist

MK: we still take comments... this might be still revised


<jhund> aq+

Johannes: proposed scripting API updates...

<jhund> Issue on Structure/concretisation of the Scripting API

Johannes: plan is to discuss it on Github.. will merge later in Current Practices document

<jhund> actual proposal on scripting API

Johannes: please comment and discuss


Dave: Last week I was in Spain... next Thursday I am talking with OPC ... about Semantics... also Industry 4.0 folks ...

Sebastian: Would like to see more technical discussions? PlugFest is rather soon
... can we reserve some time ?

MK: Indeed...

Yingying: for F2F meeting: CETC would like to give some demos... can we have a slot for this as well?
... would like to explain demo
... 15th of June could be a good date..

<mkovatsc> Bryan Sullivan of AT&T

Yingying: should get in touch with Bryan Sullivan... will try to give a presentation

Dave: Yes... should get updates from OMA and other groups as well
... How do we manage it?

<kaz> wot comm mintues

Joerg: Need to understand how to incorporate it topic-wise
... we need context (discussed also before)
... need person(s) who takes care of each liaison

Dave: let's discuss this during next comm call

DP: wanted to talk about "call for implementations" .. will do next week

<kaz> [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/06/02 19:12:45 $