Meeting minutes
Minutes
Lagally: on profile we had
may pr we just reviewed Ege's PR
… then we discuss the purposes of the
document
… I asked for review of the summary about scope in
the slide deck
… we discussed also OOTBI
… we have an agenda point for that discussion today
too
… any problems with the minutes?
… minutes approved
doodle polls
<kaz> Architecture
<kaz> Profile
WoT architecture
Lagally: small number of participants just 6
profile
Lagally: it is a little bit better
Kaz: 12 PM to 1 PM is is overlapped with the WoT Chairs call but probably we can shift the Chairs call if needed.
pubblication plan
<kaz> WG 2021 Extension Plan
Lagally: we are asking for
extension
… reviewing the plan we are a little bit late
regarding Profile
… regarding architecture we have to feature freeze
the arch spec in the current state.
… we have one PR but it is a WIP
… and a set of blocks publication issues that need
to be solved
Architecture Issues (blockers)
<kaz> Issues with the "blocks publication" label
Issue 642
<kaz> Issue 642 - Identify normative RFC2119 assertions that affect the TD specification
Lagally: system integration
section was made informative
… but the issue is still open
… we can close it
Lagally: issue 642 needs Sebastian input
Sebastian: Ege did a first review
Lagally: true
… but the issue states that we need a second
review
Sebastian: I will do it
Issue 641
Lagally: issue 641 had a resolution for assertion removal
toumura: I can do a PR
Issue 640
Lagally: issue 640 can be closed
Issue 639
Lagally: issue 639 has a PR in the TD but we need a PR in arch
Issue 638
Lagally: moving on issue 638 the text is still there, right?
Lagally: we don't have a PR
Sebastian: I can do this right now
issue 637
Lagally: there is an open
issue on the TD
… I don't know the conclusion
Lagally: in my opinion the terms should be case sensitive and must be clarified.
Sebastian: they are case
sensitive as described by DataModel
… but maybe a sentence can help
Lagally: I think is important to state this
<kaz> related wot-thing-description Issue 1303 - Make it clear that operation names are case sensitive
Issue 635
Lagally: has it been taken
care in the TD or Discovery call?
… let's revisit it when we have mccool
here
Issue 634
Lagally: is this solved?
Sebastian: I can take this
Issue 633
Lagally: can you take also this?
Sebastian: yes
Issue 632
Sebastian: I can take care of this
Issue 628
<kaz> Issue 628 - Introduction does not mention section 6
Lagally: marking as not-normative not critical
Issue 627
<kaz> Issue 627 - Chapter 10 uses non RFC assertions
Lagally: I would not do
anything
… it is not hurting anybody
… let's wait for Ege he is the original poster of
the issue
Issue 626
<kaz> Issue 626 - Explaining of WoT operations
Lagally: ege is not sure
what to do here
… let's wait for him
Issue 625
<kaz> Issue 625 - Assertion review
Lagally checking issues that has been resolved
Issue 606
<kaz> Issue 606 - Move Table for ops to TD spec
Lagally: it seems that is an overlap with one of the other issues
Lagally: the ops table
should be moved right now
… keeping issue open there's still a point that
should be satisfied
<mlagally> We still have 14 open publication blockers:
Architecture PRs - revisited
653
<kaz> PR 653 - Remove an assertion arch-hypermedia-origin
Lagally: can we merge it
?
… thank you
PR 654
<kaz> PR 654 - remove assertions
Sebastian: regarding 633
there were multiple assertions about the same point
… I combined those
Lagally: the old text gave more information
Sebastian: but if we removed the first part I think it should be fine to merge
Lagally: I think we should just remove the assertion
Sebastian: does not make sense the sentence was not correct
Lagally: I afraid that this
PR is doing too much
… I would like to keep this very clean
Sebastian: I think that simply removing the span would not really solve the issue
Lagally: my proposal is to discuss this in another PR
Sebastian: I would value more having a smooth text
Lagally: I agree but let's put this in another PR
Sebastian: ok
Meeting schedule
Lagally: will cancel the
next call on Dec 23
… let's defer the remaining discussion to Jan
13
… so we need to update our plan
… with a couple of weeks
Kaz: that's ok, please make a brief report about that on Jan 12 then
Sebastian: actually, I'm OK with holding yet another call on Dec 23
<sebastian> +1
Lagally: ok can have a quick call but we need key stakeholders there
Kaz: can make it
Ben: can' make it, sorry
Cristiano: can'tt make it, sorry
<Ege> I am available
Mizushima: I'm ok
Toumura: also available
Matsukura: I'm ok
Lagally: given lacking Ben and Cristiano, we should concentrate on Architecture
<mlagally> proposal: Do an architecture call on Dec 23rd at the current time to close publication blockers
Kaz: one hour?
Lagally: two hours for Architecture
<mlagally> proposal: Do an architecture call on Dec 23rd at the current time to close publication blockers on the architecture specification (2 hours call)
<mlagally> proposal: Do an architecture call on Dec 23rd at the current time to close all publication blockers on the architecture specification (2 hours call)
Cristiano/Ben: ok
Resolution: Do an architecture call on Dec 23rd at the current time to close all publication blockers on the architecture specification (2 hours call)
Profile
Out of the box interoperability
Ben: before talking about the requirements, should we see the issues?
(Lagally once disconnected, and comes back)
Ben: I meant GH issue 73
WoT Profile Issue 73 - Refine Goals and Scope
Kaz: Lagally, do you
mean this level of "basic expectation for goals and scope for Out
of Box Interoperability" by "Requirements" here?
… if so, we can start with your slides, I
think
Lagally: summarized the
slides based on the use case descriptins
… under the REQUIREMENTS area
Lagally: (goes through the
description within profile-requirements.md)
… Interoperability
… Limit and reduce complexity
… Ambiguities
… Human readability
… Developer guidance
… Multiple profiles
… Composable profiles
… Validatible TDs
… Identification of profiles
… Profile should define a finite set of features
and capabilities to implement by the consumer
… Limit resource consumption
… Follow Security and Privacy Best
Practices
… Developer Mode
Ben: didn't know about
this MD document
… secondly this document is kind of
old
… I've already put comments for the Issue
73
… so just curious about the process for
now
Lagally: my proposal is
revisiting high-level requirements
… and see if those (old) requirements still can get
support
… maybe we could add some other
requirements
… would that be an appropriate way?
Ben: can we change the wording?
Lagally: what do you want to change?
Ben: for example, I can support some of them but can't support others
Lagally: so at least partially agree. right?
Ben: right
Lagally: (adds notes with "*")
… partially agree, need to refine/rework
Ben: that's fine by
me
… but I've done my feedback on the Issue
73
… e.g., interoperability with "*" (i.e., partially agree but need to refine/rework)
… limit and reduce complexity with "*"
… (continues to mention which to be supported from
his viewpoint)
Kaz: maybe we can skim
the Issue 73, and see if there is any additional requirement
there to make sure
… and if any, we should add those additional
requirements as well to the profile-requirements.md
file
… then ask all to express their support/interest
for each requirement
Ben: didn't think there was any additional requirement within the issue 73
Lagally: if anybody has any
requirements to be added, please let me know
… then we'd like to get input from the other
participants
Toumura: interoperability, multiple profile, composable, identification
Sebastian: interoperability, limit and reduce (*), developer, multiple, composable
Mizushima: human readability, finite set of features
Matsukura: interoperability, ambiguities, human readability, identification, finite feature
Lagally: tx a lot for
clarifying your support
… would like to see the Out of Box Interoperability
definition now
… which "Consumers" to be considered?
… e.g., clients, servers, servients,
intermediaries, humans
… note there is an EU project report on IoT
interoperability
EU project report on IoT Interoperability
Kaz: would suggest you
clarify your expectation for the discussion beforehand
… for example, what will be discussed during the
next call
… and what kind of input is expected from the
participants
Lagally: would like to talk about people's expectations for "Out of Box Interoperability"
Kaz: that's basically elaborating the basic requirement of "Interoperability". right?
Lagally: right
Timeline and Next Step
Sebastian: we're missing the deadline for feature freeze, aren't we?
Lagally: that's true
Kaz: as already
mentioned, I'm OK with the possible delay if we can make consensus
and steady progress based on the consensus
… but we should provide an updated schedule during
the main call
… 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
… probably we can copy the input we already got
last week to those Issues or MDs as the starting point
… and ask the supporters for further
clarification
… then during the next Architecture/Profile call,
we can review the results
Lagally: ok
… thanks a lot for your contributions,
all!
… have nice holidays!
[adjourned]