Meeting minutes
Minutes
TPAC vF2F day 2 - TD day
Ege: (goes through the minutes)
… further discussion about JOSE, etc., on Oct 28
… discussion on v1.1 and v2.0
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask about Ege's slides
Ege: will do
… any objections about the minutes for publication?
(no objections and approved)
Sep-22
Ege: (goes through the minutes)
… wondering about the issue 1078
mjk: we still need discussion
Ege: any objections?
(no objections and approved)
Issues
Ege: would postpone the topic on publication schedule
Kaz: OK with waiting for Sebastian's participation
Ege: do you mean we should fix the features for v1.1?
Kaz: right
Ege: agree
… but we still many remaining issues which need further clarifications
<cris> +1 for freezing the features for TD 1.1.
Ege: would like to look into easier issues
[[
https://
API Key in query: https://
Data Schema for non JSON Payloads: https://
$id for JSON Schema: https://
? AdditionalResponses: https://
Version in TMs: https://
How to specify one of the allOf/oneOf keys are mandatory for combo scheme: https://
Action input not clear: https://
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
]]
Ege: also would suggest we remove difficult issues
[[
Meaning of Backwards Compatbility: https://
Event Frequency information: https://
Subbyte Semantics: https://
]]
Easy PRs
PR 1238
Remove duplicate line "enum" #1238
Kaz: it's just on template.html
… but do we need to regenerate index.html based on that?
Ege: this is jsonschema.tmplate.html
… so don't need to update index.html. maybe?
dape: should update index.html as well based on the change
Ege: can do that quickly
PR 1240
Ege: this is about imple.csv
Kaz: this is for the implementation report. right?
Ege: right
PR 1238 - revisited
Ege: index.html has been also fixed
… and PR merged
PR 1128
Bump lodash from 4.17.20 to 4.17.21 #1128
Ege: any problems?
Daniel: had no problem
Ege: merged
Discussion issues
Issue 1243
Definition of Backwards Compatibility #1243
Cristiano: want to make sure the backward compatibility
… if we upgrade the system to v1.1-based one, would like to process the v1.0 codes
Ege: what if I have a v1.0 consumer along with a v1.1 producer?
… would it be ok?
Cristiano: that's fine
Ege: new features should be identified by the validator
Cristiano: would like to clarify what "backward compatibility" is like
Ege: ok. let me write down
Kaz: agree with Cristiano
Kaz: for the v1.1 spec itself, we should clarify which features are compatible with the v1.0 spec
… and which are not
… to help implementers understand the difference
… and describe what would happen if implementers use what features (new features or existing features) with what kind of processor (v1.0-based or v1.1-based / producer or consumer)
Ege: (describes some expected behaviors based on the conditions)
Kaz: we should clarify that within the spec itself
Ege: ok
Daniel: suggests we look into another example of XML Schema 1.1 as well
Kaz: we need more discussion and let's have that next call
[adjourned]