10:48:19 RRSAgent has joined #wot-arch 10:48:19 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/16-wot-arch-irc 10:48:22 subtopic: Issue 633 10:48:45 ml: can you take also this? 10:48:52 seb: yes 10:49:11 subtopic: Issue 632 10:49:17 i|is this|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/634 Issue 634 - arch-thing-bundling : Things MAY be bundled together with a Consumer to enable Thing-to-Thing interaction.| 10:49:50 seb: I can take this 10:49:51 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/632 Issue 632 - arch-td-consumers-process : Consumers MUST be able to parse and process the TD representation format, which is based on JSON [[!RFC8259]]. 10:50:03 subtopic: Issue 628 10:50:07 s|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/632 Issue 632 - arch-td-consumers-process : Consumers MUST be able to parse and process the TD representation format, which is based on JSON [[!RFC8259]].|| 10:50:17 i|can take|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/632 Issue 632 - arch-td-consumers-process : Consumers MUST be able to parse and process the TD representation format, which is based on JSON [[!RFC8259]].| 10:50:18 ml: marking as not-normative not critical 10:50:37 s/can take/can take care of/ 10:51:11 i|marking|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/628 Issue 628 - Introduction does not mention section 6| 10:51:29 subtopic: Issue 627 10:52:08 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/627 Issue 627 - Chapter 10 uses non RFC assertions 10:52:23 ml: I would not do anything 10:52:34 ... it is not hurting anybody 10:52:47 ... let's wait for Ege he is the original poster of the issue 10:53:05 subtopic: Issue 626 10:53:17 ml: ege is not sure what to do here 10:53:35 ... let's wait for him 10:53:59 subtopic: Issue 625 10:54:15 ml checking issues that has been resolved 10:55:06 i|ege is not sure|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/626 Issue 626 - Explaining of WoT operations| 10:55:42 i|ml checking|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/625 Issue 625 - Assertion review| 10:57:10 subtopic: Issue 606 10:57:22 ml: it seems that is an overlap with one of the other issues 10:58:23 ml: the ops table should be moved right now 10:58:47 i|it seems|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/606 Issue 606 - Move Table for ops to TD spec| 10:59:19 ... keeping issue open there's still a point that should be satisfied 10:59:46 We still have 14 open publication blockers: 10:59:49 https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22blocks+publication%22 11:00:34 Topic: PRs 11:00:49 subtopic: 653 11:00:51 s/PRs/Architecture PRs - revisited/ 11:00:58 ml: can we merge it ? 11:01:04 ... thank you 11:01:23 subtopic: PR X 11:01:46 i|can we|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/653 PR 653 - Remove an assertion arch-hypermedia-origin| 11:01:47 seb: regarding 633 there were multiple assertions about the same point 11:01:53 ... I combined those 11:01:59 s/X/654/ 11:02:30 ml: the old text gave more information 11:02:39 i|regarding|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/654 PR 654 - remove assertions| 11:03:01 seb: but if we removed the first part I think it should be fine to merge 11:03:22 ml: I think we should just remove the assertion 11:03:55 seb: does not make sense the sentence was not correct 11:04:28 ml: I afraid that this PR is doing too much 11:04:38 ... I would like to keep this very clean 11:05:04 seb: I think that simply removing the span would not really solve the issue 11:06:15 ml: my proposal is to discuss this in another PR 11:06:39 seb: I would value more having a smooth text 11:07:01 ml: I agree but let's put this in another PR 11:07:03 seb: ok 11:08:01 present+ Ege_Korkan 11:08:39 q+ 11:09:11 ack k 11:13:37 scribenick: kaz 11:15:07 mlagally has joined #wot-arch 11:16:04 ack k 11:16:23 topic: Meeting scedule 11:16:27 s/sc/sch/ 11:16:39 ml: will cancel the next call on Dec 23 11:17:19 ... let's defer the remaining discussion to Jan 13 11:17:37 ... so we need to update our plan 11:17:50 ... with a couple of weeks 11:18:18 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/charters/wg-2021-extension-plan.md WG 2021 Extension Plan 11:18:21 q+ 11:18:58 kaz: that's ok, please make a brief report about that on Jan 12 then 11:19:00 ack k 11:19:14 sk: actually, I'm OK with holding yet another call on Dec 23 11:19:17 +1 11:19:43 ml: ok can have a quick call but we need key stakeholders there 11:19:58 kaz: can make it 11:20:19 ben: can' make it, sorry 11:20:29 cris: can't make it, sorry 11:20:37 s/can'/can't/ 11:20:50 Ege has joined #wot-arch 11:20:56 I am available 11:21:09 mizu: I'm ok 11:21:14 tou: also available 11:21:24 matsu: I'm ok 11:22:01 ml: given lacking Ben and Cristiano, we should concentrate on Architecture 11:22:11 proposal: Do an architecture call on Dec 23rd at the current time to close a publication blockers 11:22:28 kaz: one hour? 11:22:37 ml: two hours for Architecture 11:22:46 proposal: Do an architecture call on Dec 23rd at the current time to close a publication blockers on the architecture specification (2 hours call) 11:23:02 s/close a/close/ 11:23:03 s/close a/close/ 11:23:15 proposal: Do an architecture call on Dec 23rd at the current time to close all publication blockers on the architecture specification (2 hours call) 11:23:43 cris: ok 11:23:44 resolution: Do an architecture call on Dec 23rd at the current time to close all publication blockers on the architecture specification (2 hours call) 11:24:08 s|cris:|cris/ben:| 11:24:15 topic: Profile 11:24:30 subtopic: Out of the box interoperability 11:25:31 ben: before talking about the requirements, should we see the issues? 11:26:14 q? 11:26:53 i/before/slides@@@/ 11:28:09 (Lagally once disconnected, and comes back) 11:28:41 ben: I meant GH issue 73 11:28:54 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/73 WoT Profile Issue 73 - Refine Goals and Scope 11:30:03 q+ 11:31:18 ack k 11:32:00 kaz: Lagally, do you mean this level of "basic expectation for goals and scope for Out of Box Interoperability" by "Requirements" here? 11:32:09 ... if so, we can start with your slides, I think 11:32:31 ml: summarized the slides based on the use case descriptins 11:32:42 ack k 11:32:58 ... under the REQUIREMENTS area 11:33:43 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/REQUIREMENTS/profile-requirements.md profile-requirements.md 11:34:03 ml: (goes through the description within profile-requirements.md) 11:36:00 .... Interoperability 11:36:02 ... Limit and reduce complexity 11:36:10 ... Ambiguities 11:36:18 ... Human readability 11:36:28 ... Developer guidance 11:36:38 ... Multiple profiles 11:36:43 ... Composable profiles 11:36:54 ... Validatible TDs 11:37:01 ... Identification of profiles 11:37:14 ... Profile should define a finite set of features and capabilities to implement by the consumer 11:37:17 q+ 11:37:21 ... Limit resource consumption 11:37:46 ... Follow Security and Privacy Best Practices 11:37:55 ... Developer Mode 11:38:32 ack b 11:38:43 ben: didn't know about this MD document 11:39:08 ... secondly this document is kind of old 11:39:28 ... I've already put comments for the Issue 73 11:39:38 ... so just curious about the process for nw 11:39:43 s/ nw/ now/ 11:40:03 ml: my proposal is revisiting high-level requirements 11:40:21 ... and see if those (old) requirements still can get support 11:40:27 q+ 11:40:30 ben: ok 11:41:26 s/ben: ok/... maybe we could add some other requirements/ 11:41:42 ... would that be an appropriate way? 11:41:55 ben: can we change the wording? 11:42:02 ml: what do you want to change? 11:42:53 ben: for example, I can support some of them but can't support others 11:43:06 ml: so at least partially agree. right? 11:43:09 ben: right 11:43:20 ml: (adds notes) 11:43:37 ... partially agree, need to refine/rework 11:43:37 q? 11:43:41 ben: that's fine by me 11:43:53 q+ 11:43:59 ... but I've done my feedback on the Issue 73 11:44:13 ... e.g., interoperability 11:44:29 ... limit and reduce complexity with * 11:44:43 s/interoperability/interoperability with */ 11:45:31 ... (continues to mention which to be supported from his viewpoint) 11:45:43 q- 11:47:10 kaz: maybe we can skim the Issue 73, and see if there is any additional requirement there 11:47:41 ... and if any, we should add those additional requirements as well to the profile-requirements.md file 11:48:03 ... then ask all to express their support/interest for each requirement 11:48:22 ben: didn't think there was any additional requirement within the issue 73 11:48:42 ml: if anybody has any requirements to be added, please let me know 11:48:59 ... then we'd like to get input from the other participants 11:49:46 tou: interoperability, multiple profile, composable, identification 11:50:53 sk: interoperability, limit and reduce (*), developer, multiple, composable 11:53:58 mizu: human readability, finite set of features 11:55:21 matsu: interoperability, ambiguities, human readability, identification, finite feature 11:55:36 ml: tx a lot for clarifying your support 11:55:53 ... would like to see the Out of Box Interoperability definition now 11:56:17 ... which "Consumers" to be considered? 11:56:45 ... e.g., clients, servers, servients, intermediaries, humans 11:57:10 ... note there is an EU project report on interoperability 11:57:43 q+ 11:57:50 ack k 11:58:08 q+ 11:58:28 s/on/on IoT/ 11:59:44 -> https://european-iot-pilots.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/D06_02_WP06_H2020_CREATE-IoT_Final.pdf EU project report on IoT Interoperability 11:59:50 q- 12:01:08 kaz: would suggest you clarify your expectation for the discussion beforehand 12:01:24 ... for example, what will be discussed during the next call 12:01:38 ... and what kind of input is expected from the participants 12:02:31 ml: would like to talk about people's expectations for "Out of Box Interoperability" 12:02:50 kaz: that's basically elaborating the basic requirement of "Interoperability". right? 12:02:53 ml: right 12:03:21 topic: Timeline 12:03:46 sk: we're missing the deadline for feature freeze, aren't we? 12:03:50 ml: that's true 12:03:57 q? 12:03:58 ack k 12:04:00 q+ 12:08:15 ack k 12:08:59 kaz: as already mentioned, I'm OK with the possible delay if we can make consensus and steady progress based on the consensus 12:09:10 ... but we should provide an updated schedule during the main call 12:11:04 ... regarding how to proceed, would suggest we split all the expected requirements on your slides into separate GitHub issues (or might be separate MDs) and ask all the supporters of each requirement to clarify their input on their expectations and possible improvements/rewordings 12:11:37 ... probably we can copy the input we already got last week to those Issues or MDs as the starting point 12:11:50 ... and ask the supporters for further clarification 12:12:13 ... then during the next Architecture/Profile call, we can review the results 12:12:15 ml: ok 12:12:27 ... thanks a lot for your contributions, all! 12:12:39 ... have nice holidays! 12:12:41 [adjourned] 12:12:42 THanks Kaz for taking notes (again) 12:13:11 rrsagent, make log public 12:13:15 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:13:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/16-wot-arch-minutes.html kaz 13:51:49 sebastian has joined #wot-arch 14:01:45 sebastian has joined #wot-arch 14:36:34 Zakim has left #wot-arch