See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: dape
<scribe> scribeNick: DP
<inserted> scribenick: dape
MK: Any quick issue?
... none heard
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
<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
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 ]