13:12:17 RRSAgent has joined #wot-pf 13:12:17 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/08/31-wot-pf-irc 13:12:29 meeting: WoT Plugfest/Testing 13:12:36 chair: McCool 13:13:53 topic: Minutes 13:13:57 -> https://www.w3.org/2022/08/10-wot-pf-minutes.html Aug-10 13:14:35 mm: (asks about Oracle's testing status) 13:15:14 ml: (mentions some problems with ReSpec) 13:15:37 ... RFC keywords still written in lower cases 13:15:50 mm: let's come back to the minutes review itself 13:15:56 mlagally_ has joined #wot-pf 13:16:06 q? 13:16:17 (minutes approved) 13:16:44 topic: Architecture Implementation Report 13:17:09 mm: talk about the Architecture implementation status again 13:17:40 ... (shows the latest HTML of the Architecture Implementation Report on his PC locally) 13:18:06 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/PlugFest_WebConf#Agenda_31.08.2022 13:18:52 ... (and explains what McCool's assertion tool does) 13:20:59 ml: the tool detects the keyword [[class="rfc2119-assertion"]]. right? 13:21:01 mm: right 13:25:07 (some more discussion about how to deal with the mechanism.) 13:27:05 ml: wondering about how to deal with non-MUST assertions 13:27:18 mm: policy suggestions? 13:27:32 ... we could make them lower cases 13:28:37 ... the question is which the assertion is, policy issue? or deployment issue? 13:28:54 ml: some of the assertions can't be tested, I'm afraid 13:29:56 q+ 13:32:41 ... and also wondering about optional features and "MUST NOT" features 13:33:03 mm: still need two implementations for optional features 13:33:36 ... and regarding "MUST NOT" features, probably we need to see the features would fail 13:33:46 ack k 13:33:49 kaz: right 13:34:51 ... note that from the W3C process viewpoint, "Testing" for specs is not "testing the implementations as products" but "checking if the spec document is implementable" 13:35:18 ... and we need to get two interoperable implementations even for optional features 13:37:21 q+ 13:40:28 ack k 13:40:53 q+ 13:41:06 kaz: we should clarify what is really required for an implementation to be a conformant WoT Architecture implementation 13:42:10 ... and I personally think the WoT Architecture spec itself should concentrate on the basic architecture design, and the detailed behavior should be described by the children specs like TD 13:42:31 ... and all the concrete tests also can be handled by the children spec side 13:43:17 ... so would suggest we add that kind of Editor's Note instead of testing all the details on the WoT Architecture side 13:43:42 ml: I think this level of behaviors should be tested as part of the WoT Architecture specification 13:44:28 q+ 13:44:32 ack ml 13:45:35 ack k 13:46:04 kaz: don't necessarily mean we should transfer all the assertions to the children specs 13:46:27 ... but we should check again which assertions can/should be tested by which child spec 13:46:56 ... if some of the assertions can/should be tested by the child spec side, we don't need to care about them on the Architecture side as assertions 13:47:48 mm: some of the assertions like requirements for TLS are important and should be part of the assertions for the WoT Architecture 13:49:38 ack k 13:49:42 q+ 13:50:44 ml: we can still check the implementation status using the existing implementations like node-wot 13:52:21 kaz: yeah, I think that's inline with my suggestion 13:53:11 ... we still need to clarify which of these proposed assertions should be include in the final assertions to see if an implementation is a conformant WoT Architecture implementation 13:53:25 ... and how to test all the assertions for that purpose 13:53:40 ml: let's have discussion during the Architecture call tomorrow 13:54:17 ack k 13:55:14 topic: Plugfest 13:55:40 mm: do we wan to hold Plugfest, e.g., during the Post-TPAC meeting? 13:55:48 ... week of September 26 13:56:07 ml: Architecture should not need additional testing 13:56:19 q+ 13:56:58 kaz: just to make sure, do we really mean "Plugfest"? 13:57:08 ... maybe "Testfest" instead? 13:57:12 mm: right 13:57:29 ... so focus on Profile testing 13:57:45 ... Architecture shouldn't need additional testing 13:58:07 q? 13:58:09 ack k 13:58:10 q+ 13:59:35 ml: wondering if we need two Things and two Consumers 13:59:56 mm: node-wot can be used as a generic Consumer 14:00:16 ml: Toumura-san's NodeRED also can be considered? 14:00:19 mm: right 14:01:59 q? 14:03:08 ack k 14:03:24 kaz: we can of course reuse the existing WoT implementations for WoT Architecture testing 14:04:15 ... but we need to provide WoT Architecture assertions so that implementers can check if each WoT Architecture assertion is testable, and how they can test it 14:05:02 ... if we need to require manual test for some (or all) of the assertions, that's still fine 14:05:15 ... but we need to show how to test them to the implementers 14:05:35 ml: would do the things incrementally 14:05:43 [adjourned] 14:05:48 rrsagent, make log public 14:06:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:06:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/08/31-wot-pf-minutes.html kaz