<kaz> scribenick: zkis
<McCool> agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#17_July_2019
McCool:
TPAC registration and hotel reservation, if you've not done yet, please do.
... next week IETF meeting. not
sure if I can chair the main call next week. If not possible,
Kaz can chair the call instead.
... archived the proposals in the IG repo
... files can be moved in and out
... will speak on Conexxus strategy conference about WoT and IoT in retail
McCool: Kaz has finished the minutes
for the F2F
... if you see errors, please tell Kaz
<kaz> workshop minutes
<kaz> f2f minutes
Sebastian: TAG had review of WoT architecture
McCool: privacy protection has to come from higher level than TD, so it's hard to evaluate the privacy implications
<inserted> July-17 TAG agenda
<inserted> PING comment
McCool: we don't have means to
protect privacy
... PING is interested to work on the directory API with WoT
WG/IG
Lagally: we didn't include any
mandatory API at this point
... an API may not be specified in this charter period
McCool: emphasize TD is just a data
format
... but we should commit to working with PING on any future
development, e.g. an API spec
Koster: API means a resource type definition; we need an end to end system to tell privacy implications
McCool: the spec says privacy should
be controlled by the actions defined
... there is also a possible Discovery API, and others as well
(management API etc)
... See TD issue #794
<kaz> TD issue 794 (PING comment)
McCool: security is in TD endpoints,
we can't limit people from making devices that expose private
information
... we don't make APIs for devices
... we should remain descriptive
... HTML analogy - privacy is not granted by HTML alone
Taki: In the joint PING call, we received a harsh comment for not describing protecting privacy for TD model. Therefore, it would be wise to focus our comment on the future commitment, rather than making an excuse at this point.
Sebastian: discussed with security experts in Siemens; this is a typical privacy discussion which will never find solution, concerns will appear anyway
McCool: right, it's a best effort
thing, we have risk assessment and mitigation described
... this is an important topic for the next charter
... moving on with the agenda
Kaz: if they can provide several
concrete points for important privacy issues, probably we need
to incorporate those issues and possibly we need to publish an
updated Candidate Rec. However, we should mark the issues as
"v.next" if they're not fatal for the current version.
... note that we need to wrap up everything during the extension
period (6 months)
McCool: we should defer this to the
plugfest call
... topics need to be filled in
<inserted> f2f wiki
McCool: please edit the wiki page
McCool: feedback from Alan Bird
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
McCool's PR for Alan's comment
McCool: (shows the changes)
McCool: industry vertical
potion
... getting Michael Lagally's input
Lagally: suggesting reword
... "including PlugFests for specific vertical industries"
... to
... "including interoperability events for specific vertical
industries"
Sebastian: what about "Hackathon" instead of PlugFest?
McCool: "organize and run
interoperability testing events, including events for specific
vertical industries,"?
... implementations to be collected
... we don't have official conformance testing
... on the other hand, we have online testing events as
well
... plugfest is for testing interoperability
... (saves the updated text)
... group agrees to my suggested change above
... and the next comment from Lagally
... "would change the order a bit and put SDOs and industry
alliances higher in the rank"
Lagally: also we should have community guys as well
McCool: how about SDOs first?
... then industry alliances
... and then providers
... SDOs are grouped with industry alliances
... alliances are also grouped with providers
Lagally: ok
McCool: next Wendy's comment
Sebastian: deadline?
Kaz: there is a specific
procedure
... W3M review first (we're here) and then AC review next
... AC review takes one month
Kaz: do you want to respond to Wendy's comment as well as Alan's?
McCool: good question
... putting a comment to Wendy's GitHub issue
McCool: should discuss the updated WG Charter next time with Matthias
[Kaz's note: the current WoT WG Charter has been extended till Dec-31. AC announcement has been sent out. also the WoT WG Charter document has been updated accordingly.]
McCool: main issue is timing
... when to add it
... reopen the CR spec and add it now?
... or defer to v.next?
Lagally: I'm not suggesting we reopen
the spec now
... rather would propose to create a separate document
Sebastian: would be good to have some concrete proposal based on slides
Lagally: we already had discussion but can provide some
Lagally: we can use the half of the Architecture call tomorrow for the profile discussion
Sebastian: I'll be travelling tomorrow
McCool: would be better to discuss it during the TD call Friday then
Lagally: ok
McCool: we're out of time, anything important to report today?
(none)
Sebastian: PlugFest call today?
McCool: Michael Lagally will moderate it after this call
Lagally: in 5 mins
... stay on this webex
... and use "#wot-pf" IRC channel
[adjourned]