W3C

WoT Discovery

26 April 2021

Attendees

Present
Christian_Glomb, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Farshid_Tavakolizadeh, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
McCool
Scribe
cris

Meeting minutes

Agenda

McCool: Koster can't join us today, he has a conflict

Minutes

McCool: minutes looks good
… there's just a minor formatting issue

<kaz> Apr-19

Kaz: if we want I can change the style

McCool: that's fine
… any other concerns?
… ok minutes will be published

topic quick updates

McCool: we should talk about a test plan before the publication
… we are close to first publication check the current branch

PRs

McCool: we have 6 PRs

<kaz> PRs

McCool: two from Farshid and 4 from Ben
… however Ben is not here, we might need to wait

Farshid: Ben already knows the issues about his PRs, I suggest to create a branch and merge the pr there

McCool: are all Refactoring PRs?

Farshid: yes

PR 161

<kaz> PR 161 - Rename DirectoryDescription to ThingDirectory

<kaz> (McCool adds a comment)

<kaz> McCool's comment

PR 163

<kaz> PR 163 - Add pagination references and improve anonymous TD definition

Farshid: we don't have a query parameter to ask for un-enrich TDs in queries
… I discussed with Andrea about the format of enriched data
… we are thinking about flatting everything to have consistent look

McCool: I am worried about canonization and signing
… enriched metadata would brake signing
… maybe we could define an original option that force the directory to serve the original string

Farshid: it's a good option

McCool: with original we don't force a particular storage option, if the directory is confident that it can reproduce the exact same document it can even chose to store the TD in other formats
… the PR is not ready to merge, there are some issues still left

Farshid: actually the issues was already present and PR improve the current situation

<kaz> Preview diff - 6.2.1 Information Model

McCool: Yeah I've just noticed that statement that I was worrying about was previously added.
… ok then we can merge this and create an issue with follow up actions
… any other comments?
… ok I'll create related issues

McCool: maybe enriched contains sensible information like the creation time. So it might be a problem to make it the default
… issue created

Issue 165 - Add Ability to Retrieve Original TD

McCool: merging PR 163

PR 162

<kaz> PR 162 - Expiry date for registered TDs

McCool: I was not sure about the format of the embedded graph. I would use a not a proprietary format
… we need to export it to an svg file

Farshid: btw is not used in the spec, just file that is there

McCool: I see that you added the expires field as a date time
… I saw a few issues: what happens if the directory has policies more restrictive than the date requested?

Farshid: this negotiation is hard

McCool: I imagining a negotiation with errors, simply saying that the expiration date is too far in the future

Farshid: so should we had an assertion that the directory could implement this policy

McCool: yeah

Farshid: I can add it

McCool: let's keep this PR and include this proposal in the current PR
… about expire time do we want a Date or a Period?

Farshid: TTL is hard cause proxies may cause delays so the period will be elongated
… plus there are also problems for caching

McCool: I agree the delays might be a problem.

Farshid: HTTP has both mechanisms they have different meanings do we want to support both

McCool: For registration I think we need both but in the DB we might choose one

Cristiano: how the delays are useful?

McCool: not sure, but at least we can think about cases where devices does not have a RTC clock
… so that they can't really provide a specific date

Farshid: I feel that putting time of retrival in a TD is not the right place
… what about the remaining life time?

McCool: it is another option

Farshid: could we try to define applications that really needs about this feature?

McCool: ok so we conclude to make few updates and then merge

testing

McCool: what do you guys currently have as test cases
… if we have automated testing systems
… we can apply it to multiple implementations
… the other option is to let the implementers assert a particular function

Farshid: we have a test suite
… I could turn it as a github action

McCool: we could have a repo
… it would be optimal to have a csv file that reports if an assertion pass or fail

Farshid: I can format it

<kaz> [adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).