11:03:38 RRSAgent has joined #wot-profile 11:03:38 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/06-wot-profile-irc 11:03:56 meeting: WoT Profile 11:04:03 regrets: Ben 11:04:06 mlagally has joined #wot-profile 11:04:26 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Ege_Korkan, Michael_McCool 11:04:28 Mizushima has joined #wot-profile 11:08:10 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 11:09:20 topic: Minutes 11:09:30 McCool_ has joined #wot-profile 11:09:31 -> https://www.w3.org/2022/03/30-wot-profile-minutes.html Mar-30 11:09:32 approved 11:09:59 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#WoT_Architecture_.28Profile.29_-_April_6th.2C_2022 11:10:16 Ege has joined #wot-profile 11:10:18 present+ Ryuichi_Matsukura 11:10:25 scribenick: Ege 11:10:42 Topic: agenda 11:11:00 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#WoT_Architecture_.28Profile.29_-_April_6th.2C_2022 agenda for today 11:11:22 ek: should we prioritize the agenda items? 11:11:29 ryuichi has joined #wot-profile 11:12:22 mm: we can talk about transport security in the security task force 11:12:32 ek: it would be nice to talk about what happens when TD fails validation 11:12:46 ml: we can talk about it when we come to it in the agenda 11:14:18 mm: we definitely need the security and privacy sections for wide review 11:14:26 .. it doesnt matter if they are empty or not 11:14:41 topic: PR 184 11:14:53 s/doesnt/doesn't/ 11:16:24 topic: PR 186 11:16:48 mm: we need to find a good time to do this since there are parallel PRs going on 11:17:05 q+ 11:18:41 s/PR 184/Issue 184/ 11:19:50 i|PR 186|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/184 Issue 184 - Check RFC assertions / only single keyword per assertion| 11:19:57 mm: I have reworded some assertions, which touches many places in the document 11:19:57 s/topic: PR 186// 11:20:37 i|I have|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/181 related PR 181 - WIP: Implementation Report| 11:22:07 mm: we can merge some PRs today and then I can fix this 11:24:23 mm: we can do it after the arch call tomorrow 11:24:33 q+ 11:25:31 kaz: when you say two assertion keywords, what do you mean? 11:25:43 ek: I am guessing a sentence that has e.g. MUST and SHOULD at the same time 11:28:36 mm: so these should be separate assertions 11:29:20 mm: we should make sure that assertions are self contained 11:29:52 q+ 11:29:57 ack k 11:31:22 mm: too many PRs in parallel lead to merge conflicts 11:31:42 q+ 11:34:17 ek: we should make sure that there are some tables where each line is an assertion 11:34:42 s/is an assertion/is actually an assertion/ 11:34:51 ack E 11:35:12 +1 to michael lagally 11:36:51 mm: we can simplify testing by having a single schema for the table 11:37:44 q? 11:37:52 ek: but that would mean that if all the features/assertions are not implemented in a single TD, the assertion would look like not implemented 11:40:40 ml: we should not complicate the reader for the sake of the tool 11:42:35 kaz: w3c does not dictate how the report should be generated 11:45:30 s/generated/generated. That's why I'm asking you all about our own intention and policy on how to generate assertion lists, e.g., getting one simple sentence with one RFC keyword as an assertion. However, if we want to do so, we need more volunteers for assertion generation and check. Also those volunteers should work on separate sections one by one to avoid conflicts./ 11:46:09 (McCool will work on assertion improvements a bit more, and we'll continue the discussion) 11:46:29 topic: PR 157 11:46:35 mm: there are merge conflicts already 11:47:03 i|there are|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/157 PR 157 - Define protocol binding for observing properties - closes #95| 11:48:06 q+ 11:48:09 topic: PR 150 11:48:10 ack k 11:48:47 q+ 11:49:16 i|PR 150|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/157#issuecomment-1090174965 Lagally's comments saying "Needs to be retargeted to SSE section."| 11:49:48 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/150 PR 150 - event-payload-format 11:50:41 ek: I don't understand how cloud events are useful when we have TDs anyway 11:51:05 ml: I am working on a PoC with webhook and I am thinking to include cloudevents 11:52:11 q+ 11:52:55 ack m 11:55:18 -> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-profile/150/316ba88...b6cf9e1.html#payload-formats diff - 5.2.3.1 Event payload format 11:56:45 mm: on one side, leaning on a standard allows easier adoption 11:56:59 ... on the other side, it increases the payload size 11:57:43 ek: td already contains the metadata 11:58:14 q? 11:59:19 ack e 12:00:10 kaz: do you already have a prototype that uses this 12:02:10 ml: I am working on a prototype implementation on this 12:03:06 @kaz so here is what I would propose for the minutes, this is of course just what I remember 12:03:16 and also just a summary 12:03:40 ek: my opinion is that we do not need this wrapper metadata when we already have TDs 12:04:31 ml: We should not turn a blind eye to the world, find established standards and use them 12:04:33 rrsagent, make log public 12:04:38 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:04:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/06-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 12:10:56 [adjourned] 12:10:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:10:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/06-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 14:04:52 Zakim has left #wot-profile