WoT Security – 04 April 2022

Meeting minutes

McCool: looking at the PR 1421 again

McCool: check the spec actually what it's written

Jan: problem is, there is one definition 'in'

McCool: how we do handle case right now does not make senese

Jan: wouldn't it make sense to separate?

McCool: one suggestion is using different name for 'in', e.g., in_xx, and use the same label "in"

Jan: might cause confusion

McCool: let's think about it and the worst case just leave as it is now. we can write validation in json schema

McCool: we need to consider compatability

McCool: URI is not a problem for compatability

McCool: made a normative sections and RFC keywords. Now it has assertions and new wordings.

<kaz> s/related PR/related Issue/

Jiye: why 3x? is there any reference?

McCool: it's from QUIC/HTTP3.

Philipp: it makes sense when service accepts HTTP3

Philipp: you might want to add periodically chainging IP address?

McCool: good point, I will add it to the note.

McCool: do you know related RFC number?

Philipp: I will have a look

McCool: will not push to merge this right away, but will wait one week for a review

McCool: need to read through the document, and see what we can do

[adjourned]