Recent editorial updates
PR 126 - Editorial fixes for issue 119
Lagally: just fixed typos
PR 128 - list contributors and respective companies in acknowledgement section
Lagally: updates for the acknowledgement section
McCool: maybe should have the list in alphabetical order?
Lagally: yes, it's already so
Kaz: as confirmed the other day, we should not include non-Member companies' names for each Use Case entry
2.3.3 Automated Smart Building Management
McCool: or rather we can simply remove all the companies' names from each Use Case description to be consistent
McCool: we can list multiple authors concatenated with ", " (=A, B, C)
PR 129 - cleanup references
Lagally: updated the reference section
PR 117 - WIP: Add liaisons
Lagally: let's leave it out at the moment
Issue 84 - Security and requirements questionnaire
McCool: we did look into it
… may have cross-TF issues
Lagally: asking for a table indicating which concrete implementations (eg OAuth2) satisfy which requirements (eg "scopes").
… we talked about this
… most to be included in the Security Best Practice document
… and Use Case document should have more generic description
… and possibly link to the Best Practices document
… would be nice to have detailed description at one place
… question 4 here is more related to Web questionnaire
… probably should look at the long list on security
Kaz: McCool, could you please respond to this issue 84?
McCool: (adds comments)
… adding a cross-reference
Lagally: think we need to extend the Use Case template with some more detailed security and privacy questions
… just added a cross-referencing with wot-security issue 168
wot-security issue 168 - Add "Security and Privacy Considerations" to all use cases (or requirements)
Lagally: (also updates the wot-usecases issue 84)
… McCool will discuss this in the Security TF and come back with a list of candidate questions
… 3 sub steps
… starting with brainstorming
… look at the CR questions we got
Issue 70 - Fix reference section
Lagally: PR 129 already available
Issue 45 - Review EdgeX Architecture
Lagally: what would be the use case description for this proposal?
McCool: maybe we need some more generic use case description
… also a hub-based architecture proposal for the Architecture document
… we could think about adding a section for hub-based architecture
Kaz: from our viewpoint, hub-based structure is one the possible connection patters, and we already have a section about that which could include hub-based structure as well
… also we should have some concrete use case scenario for EdgeX architecture if we want to have a use description for it within the Use Cases document.
Lagally: will update the shortname to "wot-usecases"
Kaz: as I mentioned, we've got transition approval, so let' move forward :)