Meeting minutes
minutes
McCool: not too much
... still some issues with some assertions
… minutes looks good
… any objections?
… ok minutes accepted
PRs
PR 349
<kaz> PR 349 - Add TMs and manual.csv for sdf-wot-converter
McCool: a bunch of TM models from sdf-wot-converter
… but there is an issue
Ege: is a validation issue
… regarding format keyword
Fady: I'm not sure where is the problem, but if it is written in the TD/TM schema
… there is the possibility that it might be wrong there
<kaz> RFC 6901 - JSON Pointer
McCool: json pointer is meant to be used as fragment identifiers
Fady: practically is ajv problem
… they are using two different keywords for describing JSONPointers
… one for the full path
… and the other for relative part
<McCool_> ajv-formats
Ege: I checked two different JSONSchema validator implementations and one accept it and the other not
… there might be a inconsistency problem
McCool: the RFC clearly states that a JSON Pointer is not an URL
… putting this aside I think we should merge the PR and fix the problem about JSONPointer somewhere else
Kaz: I agree
Ege: basically # is not allowed
… the submission is wrong (it contains #)
Fady: beware that the TD spec uses # everywhere.
McCool: checking examples in a minute
… actions: review the TD spec,
Kaz: we should discuss these details in the TD call
McCool: I agree
McCool: bottom line, we can't merge this PR because it contains pointers with #
PR 356
Fady: tool problem
… TDs are correct
<kaz> PR 356 - Add ComboSecurityScheme with descriptions
Fady: but the tool is behaving wrongly
… PR inflight
Ege: the official JSON Schema does not included the URI
… but still the tool fails
Fady: we have to discuss about it
McCool: ok about the PR we can proceed
… since is not a problem with the TDs
Fady: I agree
<McCool_> related TD issue 1557
<McCool_> merged, overriding validation check failure
testfest logistics
<kaz> 2022.07.Online
McCool: July testfest
… dates are set
Ege: we know a bunch of people from University of Turin
… can we ask them to join?
McCool: it sounds that they are better fit for August (plugFest)
Ege: they do not have a new application
McCool: if that's so we can invite them as guests
Kaz: if you want invite implementers to verify implementability of some feature we should do that in Septmber
… if the implementation is old
… we can use it as part of our implementation report
cris: they are also developing experimental features
… we should clarify the scope
… but I am ok to invite them
McCool: I've updated the readme
<kaz> s/If you want invite implementers to verify implementability of some feature we should do that in Septmber/if they can provide implementation report for the July testfest, we can invite them. On the other hand, if they want to show their implementations to us or see connectivity with the other implementations, we should rather invite them to a Plugfest, e.g., the one during TPAC in September./
Ege: I won't be able to participate in the August PF
McCool: about logistics I'd like to propose to use the same time
Ege: links are dead in the readme
cris: I can't join too
McCool: let's do it anyway we don't have any other good slots for it
implementation reports
McCool: I have still to re-run the tests
Ege: there is also some problem with node-wot
… I opened the issue
… I will investigate
… going back to invite
… can I do it
… ?
McCool: regarding PF I am ok for you to invite people
… just be sure that they know the IP policy
Ege: testfest too?
McCool: both, but it is technically an IG activity.
Kaz: I basically agree with your position, Michael.
… but would suggest we should be a bit more careful about who to invite to which events.
McCool: yeah we may define a policy
… however the event is under IG so people must obey to IG policy
… I ok with giving the power to editors
… to extend invitations
Kaz: how to deal with CG is not clearly defined
… we should consider "why we need to invite who to which events or meetings".
McCool: I agree a kind of rationale
McCool: bug report might fell under CG activity
Ege: I agree
Kaz: if we invite somebody to our meetings or events, we should clarify why we need to invite them and what would be their potential contributions.
McCool: let's discuss this in the main call
… but it is a little late
… can I ask directly a description
… and a motivation
… so that we can decide by email
Kaz: yes, we need to see who to be invited to which events or meetings for what purpose.
[adjourned]