Meeting minutes
minutes
any objections
no
Status TD wide review
status about accessibility wide review
https://
<kaz> (some touble with audio and we'll restart the call)
so far no feedback
<McCool_> (sorry, need to step away for a bit, will be back for second hour)
status of the internationalization
wide review https://
<kaz> related Issue 1410 - Interaction of RFC3986 and JSON Pointer
there are some open issue which
furhter discussions
https://
we will invite Addision Phillips again to one of the next TD calls to clarify these issues
in SDF the sdfRef has no special requirement.
no news from the TAG review
also no feedback from IANA
Klaus: this also means this is a good feedback. If there is no response after one week we can go to the offical registration
I will check with plh about this and ask for feedback
Use cases check
also see
https://
<kaz> -> https
<Ege> https://
this is a suggestion for a new template for use cases
it provides information for each task force like binding, TD, discovery
MCCOOL: we should indicate the use cases that have requirements and which not
Kaz: agree with MM from
main call
… use of this new template for the current charter
kind of complicated. We should work with this for the next
charter
Ege: there only around 10% of the use cases that have specific requirements like OPC UA
latest discussion about the use case
table https://
MCCOOL: A requirements
table would make more sense to me
… please share your comments on this
TestFest
MCCOOL: disuss in the
meeting about the csv and how to fill them
… there was no update about the report
itself
MCCOOL: we not talked about the missing implementations that are causes red results. It seems a breaking thing in the implementation. Needs to be checked
Ege: I will check with fady about this
PRs
<McCool_> (to clarify, my request was to re-run the assertion tester and update the Results dirs, so I can get up-to-date CSV files to update the IR)
PR 1361
<kaz> PR 1361 - WIP: make hctl:hasTarget a datatype property
this issue solve a semantic translation issue
decided to merge, however, needs to reslove the file conflicts before
I will do it later
PR 1437
https://
Ege: I used in this PR direct references, e.g., [=first-strong detection=]
<Ege> https://
Cristiano: we already use it in scripting api
<cris_> https://
<cris_>
https://
Ege: still waiting feedback form Adison
not going to merge today
<Ege> @cris does xref pick up architecture references in scripting api?
<Ege> https://
<Ege> but whatwg spec links work
<kaz> PR 1444 - add text about case sensitive
decided to merge
Sebastian: would like to use the remaining 30 mins for Binding discussion
Kaz: that's fine but please think about the updated publication timeline based on the current situation to see if we can make the publication timeline
Sebastian: ok
… (then quickly skims the remaining I18n issues and
PRs)
e.g., PR 1448 - Rename values in sting-based enum value list
(merged PR 1448 itself)
Binding Templates
PR 155
PR 149
PR 149 - CoAP Binding based on features
<cris> +1 for the new approach
(merged)
Kaz: merging PR 149
itself is fine
… but that means we would have sections on protocol
rather than sections on SDOs. right?
Ege: we have another
section named "Platforms"
… and need to think about how to deal with
that
McCool: platforms include
both protocols and payloads
… standards or ecosystems might make sense
also
Ege: would handle this point separately
McCool: would suggest we gather people's proposals
Ege: ok
wot-usecases PR 192
this issue is located in use case repo
<Ege> https://
Ege: in the future
there should be more details about the protocol binding in the use
case definition
… what do you think?
Cristiano: I think it is sometimes hard to share details. There are use cases there are kind of independent which kind protocol is used
Kaz: We already talked about this issue in the TD session. Do you want to discuss this again?
Ege: I just want to
identify which can be the requirements in the context of protocol
binding for the use cases
… if there some details available in the use case
then it would be good to have this details
the list looks ok, I think there needs a hint that maybe no information needs to be shared when a use case can not provide this kind of information
acl s
adjourn