W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Discovery

18 July 2022

Attendees

Present
Andrea_Cimmino, Christian_Glomb, Farshid_Tavakolizadeh, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
McCool
Scribe
glomb, kaz

Meeting minutes

Minutes

<kaz> July-11

Minutes from last meeting: slight corrections, approved

PR 376

PR 376: Add missing tdd-things-update-contenttype to manual.csv

New assertion included: merged

Testing

<kaz> 2022-July Testfest

Links in wot-testing/events/2022.07.Online corrected appropriately

Testing next week: check schedule & participation - Discovery call will be cancelled - logistics in https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/tree/main/events/2022.07.Online/README.md

manual.csv and test tool should be up-to-date, however assertions related to event filtering might fail

Event Filtering assertion should be fixed

<kaz> 3-wd draft: 7.3.2.2 Events API

Farshid: What if Event type is missing?: need clarifications

mmc asks farshid to open an issue / PR

<McCool_> Farshid will reword following assertion to make it clearer that it is conditional: "The server MUST support event filtering based on the event type given by the client upon subscription."

McCool: Implementations should be updated and both manual as well as auto assertion tests should be run

<McCool_> https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/blob/main/events/2022.07.Online/README.md

McCool: Currently ahead of schedule wrt. CR transition, no severe feedback gotten yet (especially wrt. security)

Farshid: Will create new implementation report directory and update https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/pull/362

Use links whenever possible (manual.csv and template.csv)

Publication preparation

<kaz> Pubrules checker

McCool: which Patent Policy to be used?

Kaz: For today, we should use the old one, and should switch to new Patent Policy after getting the W3M approval for the new (extended) WG Charter.

McCool: farshid should fix affiliation / hyperlink related to it

Links to "Hydra" are reported broken by the checker, even though they are not

<kaz> kaz: In that case

In that case, maybe that's caused by some additional tooling mechanism, so please don't worry.

<glomb> kaz: Not considered an issue ...

TAG Review feedback

<glomb> TAG Issue 736: Web of Things (WoT) Architecture 1.1

<glomb> Testable statements for Security and Privacy needed

<glomb> mmc: E.g. "Denial of Service" - should be more precise

<McCool_> follow assertion might be considered a statement of policy: "If Things cannot be individually secured with transport security and authentication and authorization, a separate network SHOULD be set up, i.e. with an alternative SSID, and used only for IoT devices. "

Kaz: ideally, we should describe within each feature description what is the expected behavior of each implementation of the WoT Discovery specification's feature based on the requirements, e.g., the mitigation description.

McCool: Could have a separate section about "mitigation" or "downgrade to informative statements"

McCool: ... and mark them as proposals

McCool: However, security reviewers asked us to make normative statements

McCool: But cannot make it an assertion if not test-able

<kaz> [adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 147 (Thu Jun 24 22:21:39 2021 UTC).