<McCool> agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#16_Oct_2019

<scribe> scribenick: kaz

Singapore F2F cancelled

McCool: unfortunately, there is no sponsorship for the expected Singapore f2f...
... so had to cancel the meeting
... no f2f meeting will be there on Nov. 13-14
... but we're still having the IRTF workshop on Nov. 15 and the IETF hacathon on Nov. 16
... if people have got reservation, very sorry for the f2f part

David: what would be 15th?

McCool: original plan was
... joint discussion during the workshop with IRTF T2TRG for the WISHI workshop on 15th
... but the funding has been lost for the f2f part on 13-14

TPAC minutes

f2f minutes

McCool: any comments?
... otherwise would fix them
... would assume people have already read them

Kaz: got confirmation from Chris Needham from the MEIG about the joint call on Dec 3

McCool: (adds that point to the main call wiki)

<McCool> proposal: accept the TPAC 2019 F2F minutes

McCool: any objections to the above proposal?

(no objections)

RESOLUTION: accept the TPAC 2019 F2F minutes

McCool: slides marked as "TBD" should be installed on GitHub

Kaz: please install your slides to the presentation area

PRESENTATIONS area

McCool: note that slide sets for F2F meetings should be installed under the f2f areas
... (shows the f2f area for Fukuoka meeting)

<McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/f2f/2019/09-fukuoka

<McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/f2f/2019/09-fukuoka/2019-09_WoT-AC.pdf

McCool: f2f-specific slides should go to under the f2f area like the one above
... summary ones can be copied to the main PRESENTATIONS area

<McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/PRESENTATIONS

Kaz: ah, yes, sorry for wrongly putting the main PRESENTATIONS area for the f2f slides on the main call wiki...

McCool: np

New calls

McCool: WG Charter
... please generate issues if you have comments
... Security
... we had difficulty with people's participation in the security calls
... e.g., Oliver from Siemens?

Sebastian: we have already made announcement about Oliver's participation again
... had a meeting with him yesterday
... he can join the main call next week
... also will actively join the security calls

<McCool> security doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/t6uxq6uvacqt63bt

McCool: please let him know about the above doodle then
... hopefully from next week, we can start the new slot

IG Charter review

McCool: we got 24 supports
... one comment was adding the Web&Networks IG to section 4.1
... Kaz has generated a PR for that purpose

PR 891

McCool: that adds an entry for Web&Networks IG to 4.1
... any objections to merge this?

(no objections)

McCool: (merges PR 891)

<McCool> proposal: forward the final IG Charter to W3M for approval

RESOLUTION: confirm the final IG charter sent to W3M for approval

Privacy

McCool: had discussion with the Privacy IG
... we have very tight schedule to address the issues
... need to publish an updated CR2
... updated process is

* Release candidates available Oct 18 for Arch and TD

* If no objections, then CR2 transition will take place Oct 21 at 11:59pm JST (11am EDT)

McCool: and submit the transition request on 22nd
... major issues based on the feedback from the Privacy IG
... PLH's feedback covers what we need to do

PLH's feedback (Member-only)

McCool: to PRs 820 and 820 to address PING issues
... to be confirmed during the TD call on Oct 18
... require another CR publication
... detailed timeline:

- review the draft for CR2 during main call on 16. October

- final release candidate on 18. October

- do resolution about release candidate via email. Deadline for this will be 21. October.

- transition request to CR2 on 22. October

- publication of CR2 on 29. October

- transition request to PR on 3. December

- publication of PR on 29. October 10. December

- have REC 14 Jan 2020

McCool: regarding Architecture
... issue 390 raised by PING
... Lagally's response provide
... including the description on our privacy consideration section including possible risks and mitigations

Lagally's response

McCool: PR 394, 395, 396 made
... PLH's suggestion:

It would be better to mention the risk of "id" (esp. unique ID's being mandatory and we made it optional and removed the uniqueness) within the section 10. We might want to add one more PR for that purpose.

Lagally: Architecture also needs a 2nd CR?

Kaz: yes

Lagally: would like to discuss the pros/cons during the Architecture call tomorrow

McCool: note that the terminology sections within the TD and the Architecture should be also informative to be consistent with the reference from TD to Architecture

Lagally: should be discussed/confirmed during the Architecture call tomorrow

David: there was a concern from the Privacy IG during the TPAC f2f that privacy section was not normative
... what is the status about that?

McCool: our long-term plan is eventually generating a (updated) Architecture with normative things
... eventually should have some concrete mechanism (at some point)

Kaz: (explains the history so far)
... we had 2 joint calls with the Privacy IG after TPAC and got OK from them if we remove "unique" from the "id" feature, and make the feature optional
... we also need to make the reference from TD to Architecture informative

David: tx for clarification

McCool: there was some confusion about our specs as well
... believe we can get through the process now
... go to 2nd CRs for TD and Architecture
... expecting no objections
... if you have any objection, please work quickly so that we can solve it
... should be done as GitHub issues

Lagally: might make sense to encourage people to provide constructive solution as well when they raise issues (if possible)
... what need to be done to solve the issue

McCool: right
... (type in the proposed resolution)

<McCool> proposal: given release candidates for Architecture and TD specifications are available by Oct 18, if there are no outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm, we will proceed with requesting CR transitions for these documents

Kaz: meaning "11:59pm JST" by "11:59pm"?

McCool: right

<McCool> proposal: given a release candidate for the WoT Architecture document is available by Oct 18, if there are no outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm JST, we will proceed with requesting a CR transition for this document

McCool: any objections?

Lagally: saying "given" sounds like it's already done

McCool: let's say "assuming" instead then

<McCool> proposal: Assuming the availability of a release candidate for the WoT Architecture document is available by Oct 18, if there are no outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm JST, we will proceed with requesting a CR transition for this document

(no objections)

RESOLUTION: Assuming the availability of a release candidate for the WoT Architecture document is available by Oct 18, if there are no outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm JST, we will proceed with requesting a CR transition for this document

RESOLUTION: Assuming the availability of a release candidate for the WoT Thing Description document is available by Oct 18, if there are no outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm JST, we will proceed with requesting a CR transition for this document

McCool: let's have resolution for the timeline and process first and then another resolution on what "outstanding objections" means

<McCool> proposal: "outstanding objection" will mean a written github issue filed that directly addresses a problem with a release candidate

<McCool> proposal: "outstanding objection" will mean a written github issue in the corresponding repository filed that directly addresses a problem with a release candidate

McCool: what those proposed resolutions sound?

Lagally: ok

McCool: any objections?

(none)

RESOLUTION: "outstanding objection" will mean a written github issue in the corresponding repository filed that directly addresses a problem with a release candidate

Scripting next steps

Zoltan: how to continue the work on Scripting?
... CG? new CG or the WoT CG?
... WG? part of the work as a Note?

McCool: right now, the proposed WG Charter has Scripting as a WG Note
... CG can also work on Scripting

Zoltan: note CG Report is not normative

McCool: if we create a CG for Scripting, we should remove it from the WG Charter

Zoltan: advantage of the CG work is time-free

Sebastian: prefer keeping the Scripting API work within the WG Charter
... and publish it as a WG Note
... would let us guarantee the content to be more aligned with the main documents like TD
... not sure if that's possible if it goes to a separate CG

McCool: having external participation would be useful
... but not sure about which way would be better
... having related deliverables at one point would be cleaner

Zoltan: would be easier to have a separate CG to define APIs

Sebastian: API discussion is already open on the GitHub
... external people also have opportunity to give contributions

Zoltan: we don't have to make the conclusion now
... can make the decision later

McCool: is there any IP requirement?

Kaz: good question
... we need to think about that if we really want to transfer the Scripting APIs draft to a CG
... regarding the next step for Scripting itself, I'd agree with Zoltan that we don't need to make the conclusion during this call
... we should continue the discussion and the WoT participants are encouraged to understand how to use the Scripting APIs, e.g., for the PlugFest
... For example, I think it would be nice to have a tutorial session on the Scripting APIs for the group participants so that people can understand how to use Scripting APIs within node-wot for PlugFest.
... maybe we could do that kind of tutorial during the Scripting calls

Daniel: we should keep the scripting work within the WG
... we have the WoT CG but it's not really active
... regarding the question about IPR, there was similar problem with TD, I thought

McCool: do you think the Scripting call is a WG call? or an IG call?
... unfortunately we're running out of time

AOB?

McCool: today we'll not have the PlugFest call
... had discussion with Kaz, and we think we still need clarification on testing, etc.
... also we need a champion/moderator for the PlugFest work
... would ask for a volunteer
... meantime, we need to work on the specs
... so today we won't have the PlugFest call
... next week would see a volunteer
... any other business?

Lagally: please participate in the Architecture call tomorrow
... if you have any concern, please raise an issue beforehand and join the Architecture call tomorrow

McCool: anything else?

(none)

[adjourned]