HTML for REC publication

diff version

Taki: (goes through the draft)

Kaz: will fix the JS script for example 32
... regarding the yellow section at 8.1 saying:

[[

Some security protocols may ask for authentication information dynamically, including required encoding or encryption schemes. One consequence of the above is that if a protocol asks for a form of security credentials or an encoding or encryption scheme not declared in the Thing Description then the Thing Description is to be considered invalid.

]]

Kaz: need to confirm with McCool this part is informative to make sure

Proposed REC version

github.io version

Taki: other than that the draft looks good
... should we have an updated change log section?

Kaz: would be great

Taki: will do

Kaz: tx!

Taki: how about the JS code for example 32?

Kaz: will fix it like we did for the Proposed REC

Previous minutes

Mar-6 minutes

Mizushima: no problem from me

Taki: let's approve the minutes then

Virtual F2F

Virtual f2f agenda

Kaz: as I mentioned yesterday, I'll have 2 Team-internal calls on Thursday
... and suggesting to McCool/Sebastian that we have (1) node-wot tutorial at 4-6am PDT, noon-2pm CET, 8-10pm JST and (2) Marketing discussion at 7-8am PDT, 3-4pm CET, 11pm-midnight JST

(Sebastian and Daniel join)

Virtual F2F (continued)

Sebastian: we should look into several issues

<sebastian> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/302

<sebastian> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/878

Sebastian: would be great to get feedback from Ben as well
... let's see his response

online f2f agenda

Sebastian: would have discussion on Architecture on Tuesday
... also OAuth2 discussion with Singapore guys
... to see what is missing
... need implementations for that as well
... will ask McCool to make an introduction for this topic
... next new topics from the updated Charter
... efficient formats for TD
... Taki and Daniel are expected to talk about that
... good timing to refresh the discussion
... Taki and Daniel, are you OK?

Taki: need to talk with Daniel about how to do that
... but we should do that
... raised an issue about that

Daniel: is it a new one?

Taki: yes, just created a couple hours ago

Daniel: will take a look that then

<taki> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/885

Sebastian: and eventing
... not sure if we're really ready for this topic
... still a bit fuzzy for TD discussion
... need to have more concrete and specific proposals
... would like to make it clearer during the session
... maybe would be good to have Ben
... will prepare some slides
... but possibly will be postponed
... and then issues marked as maintenance/next version
... btw, is there any feedback about the topics/timing?

Lagally: would identify possible building blocks based on the use cases

Sebastian: more topics coming up based on the previous discussions
... we could be kind of ad-hoc

Lagally: would encourage requirements to Thursday TD session

(discussion on Thursday slots)

architecture: 3am PDT, 6am EDT, 11am CET, noon EET, 7pm JST

node-wot: 4-6am, PDT, 7-9am EDT, noon-2pm CET, 1-3pm EET, 8-10pm JST

marketing: 7am PDT, 10am EDT, 3pm CET, 4pm EET, 11pm JST

Sebastian: another question is TD template
... Lagally, do you have any slides on the motivation, etc.?
... I myself have some which I shared 1-2 years ago

Lagally: can create some input
... which will describe the requirements
... could you let me know about your resource?

Sebastian: will do
... any other comments?

(none)

Sebastian: that's it for TD

Binding

Sebastian: vocabulary for context files?
... Ege, can you take over the discussion?

Ege: we should do this together with CoAP, IETF, OASIS, etc.

Sebastian: definitely should be aligned with them
... Klaus is a good contact
... we should think about MQTT as well
... should contact somebody who is actively working on that
... any idea?

Ege: not really
... maybe should ask Michael Koster?
... note that binding template doesn't require all the terms from various protocols
... e.g., HTTP vocabulary

Sebastian: good point
... would be good to have ontology design separately from TD discussion

Ege: right

Sebastian: think we have to the initiative to work on the topic
... what I can suggest is talking with Klaus about CoAP
... regarding MQTT, we should find a contact person
... maybe a good idea to ask Koster for opinion

<scribe> ACTION: sebastian to ask Klaus about CoAP and ask Koster about MQTT

Sebastian: any other points for today?

Ege: no

Sebastian: that's all for today then
... next week, we'll have the online f2f, so please be aware of the schedule
... Kaz, you'll share the WebEx information. right?

Kaz: yes

Sebastian: let's enjoy our "virtual beer" after the meeting as well ;)

<Mizushima> +1

[adjourned]