scribenick: Oliver
Review planned agenda: no objection/changes
<inserted> Sep-14
Minutes of the WoT Security call on 2020-09-14 reviewed with no objections; will be made public
Discussion on thing lifecycle: feedback from calls with architecture. Improved alignment with T2TRG proposed. Updated description exists in form of a PR. Status: work-in-progress
<McCool> wot-architecture PR 539
Reviewers are welcome to provide comments (Issue#539 in wot-architecture)
<kaz> Proposed topics
Next discussed and drafted an agenda for WoT Security for upcoming F2F meeting
Currently planned topics (1h altogether): TD changes, OAuth, lifecycle
wot-thing-description changed rendering script for its main document. That resulted in the need to double-check security-specific sections
Double-check result: structurally okay but let's TODO surface. Need to resolve or remove them
<McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/965
This problem is captured in issue#965 in wot-thing-description
Suggestion is to comment them out, no objection
<inserted> Issues for the joint call agenda
Joint calls are planned with W&N, JSON-LD, DID groups
Preparation work is addressed by issue#932-934 in WoT
Also call with MEIG group planned
New additional issue#936 created for prep'ing joint call with MEIG
<kaz> wot-security issues
McCool:(quickly skims the remaining issues)
<inserted> Issues for joint meeting agenda
Demands for joined call discussion topics are welcome. Bring proposals up in the above mentioned issues
<McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot/labels/agenda
scribenick: kaz
(will be discussed during the Testing call)
<kaz> Issue 138 - Review Lifecycle model
scribenick: Oliver
Issue#138 is superseded by issue#169 (now closed). So issue#138 gets closed
scribenick: kaz
Kaz: will we create another (smaller) issue to review the updated lifecycle section from the Architecture draft then?
McCool: can create a new issue for that purpose
scribenick: Oliver
(New issue#192 created to review updated thing lifecycle in Architecture)
scribenick: kaz
<kaz> new issue 192 for cross-reference with wot-architecture
McCool: any other issues you think done?
<kaz> Issue 65 - Consider moving Thing lifecycle discussion to Architecture
McCool: not sure this is done, let's check next time.
[adjourned]