12:03:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot
12:03:56 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/07-wot-irc
12:04:05 <kaz> meeting: WoT Pre-TPAC Meeting - Day 2
12:05:07 <McCool_> McCool_ has joined #wot
12:05:07 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan, Kunihiko_Toumura, Zoltan_Kis, Michael_Lagally
12:07:41 <Mizushima> Mizushima has joined #wot
12:07:43 <kaz> present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
12:08:32 <kaz> scribenick: Ege
12:08:38 <Ege> topic: Agenda
12:09:30 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/PRESENTATIONS/2022-09-hybrid-f2f/2022-09-07-WoT-F2F-Opening-McCool.pdf McCool's slides
12:09:36 <Ege> mm: probably we can squeeze publication status a bit
12:09:43 <Ege> mm: we do not want to reach resolutions today
12:10:07 <kaz> present+ Zoltan_Kis
12:10:20 <ryuichi> ryuichi has joined #wot
12:10:48 <Ege> mm: maybe zoltan can talk about the scripting api status
12:11:19 <dape> dape has joined #wot
12:11:35 <McCool_> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/409
12:11:36 <Ege> mm: decided to go to CR for discovery
12:12:00 <kaz> i/github/topic: Review publication status, testing requirements, planning/
12:12:09 <kaz> i/github/subtopic: Discovery/
12:12:20 <kaz> s/https/-> https/
12:12:46 <Ege> mm: I will send an email to start CR transition for discovery by starting the review process
12:13:24 <kaz> s/409/409 PR 409 - Update DNS-SD section (usage of TXT Record)/
12:13:50 <kaz> subtopic: TD
12:14:06 <Ege> mm: is there a TD call?
12:14:08 <Ege> ek: yes
12:14:16 <mlagally_> mlagally_ has joined #wot
12:14:16 <Ege> mm: is there a CR version of TD?
12:14:24 <Ege> ek: I think so
12:15:00 <kaz> s/mm: decided to go to CR for discovery/mm: decided to go to CR for discovery after handling the above PR on DNS registration./
12:15:21 <Ege> mm: do you plan for a resolution of the binding templates?
12:15:32 <kaz> s/yes/yes, but the topic will be Binding Templates today./
12:15:33 <Ege> ek: yes but not very soon, still need to work on the main document
12:15:51 <cris> cris has joined #wot
12:15:51 <Ege> mm: so no need for resolutions at the moment
12:15:55 <kaz> q+
12:16:34 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2022/WD-wot-architecture11-20220907/ WoT Architecture 1.1 2nd WD just published
12:16:38 <kaz> ack k
12:16:45 <mlagally_> q+
12:17:08 <Ege> mm: what about architecture
12:18:15 <Ege> kaz: I have finished generating the static version
12:18:27 <Ege> ml: the spec is frozen since multiple weeks
12:18:33 <Ege> q+
12:18:36 <Ege> ack m
12:18:49 <citrullin> citrullin has joined #wot
12:18:50 <kaz> s/ I have finished generating the static version/the updated WD has just been published as above./
12:18:59 <kaz> s/the up/ the up/
12:19:36 <Ege> ek: what about the testing of the arch spec?
12:21:01 <Ege> mm: we should go through the assertions one last time
12:21:07 <Ege> ... we need manual assertions
12:21:32 <kaz> q?
12:21:35 <kaz> ack e
12:22:00 <kaz> q+
12:22:33 <Ege> mm: e.g. we have an assertion about the secure updates but that is difficult to implement now
12:22:59 <kaz> present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi, Philipp_Blum, Ben_Francis Fady_Salama, Kunihiko_Toumura, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Tomoaki_Mizushima
12:23:07 <kaz> zakim, who is on the call?
12:23:07 <Zakim> Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan, Kunihiko_Toumura, Zoltan_Kis, Michael_Lagally, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Philipp_Blum, Ben_Francis, Fady_Salama,
12:23:10 <Zakim> ... Ryuichi_Matsukura
12:23:11 <kaz> q?
12:23:16 <Ege> mm: we can put them and make them lower case if no one implements it
12:23:41 <kaz> ack k
12:24:14 <kaz> present+ Daniel_Peintner
12:24:22 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
12:24:27 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:24:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/07-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:25:03 <Ege> kaz: we should discuss how to do the testing of the arch spec
12:25:12 <Ege> mm: we can have one but we did not plan it yet
12:25:20 <Ege> kaz: maybe it should be discussed in the arch call first
12:27:34 <kaz> chair: McCool
12:27:36 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:27:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/07-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:28:04 <kaz> i/WoT Architecture 1.1/subtopic: Architecture/
12:28:07 <Ege> mm: security guidelines needs a revision
12:28:16 <kaz> i/security/subtopic: Security/
12:28:35 <Ege> topic: deliverable proposals
12:28:37 <kaz> i/Security/subtopic: Scripting API/
12:28:56 <kaz> i/Security/dape:/ planning to publish an updated Note but need some more time./
12:29:42 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/2022/Talks/0907-deliverables-ka/ Kaz's slides
12:29:56 <Ege> kaz: daniel asked me to prepare differnt types of documents based on the process document
12:30:48 <dape> q+
12:31:20 <Ege> kaz: there are alternatives based on       Standard or NOT     Protected by W3C Patent Policy or NOT     Sufficient implementations or NOT     Endorsed by W3C or NOT
12:32:53 <mlagally_> q+
12:33:14 <McCool_> q?
12:33:38 <Ege> kaz: my suggestion for scripting api is to go with rec if it should be a basis for wot implementations
12:33:54 <zkis> q+
12:33:59 <zkis> ack dape
12:34:34 <Ege> dp: I have noted that normative notes are endorsed by wot group
12:34:42 <dape> ack dape
12:35:13 <McCool_> q+
12:35:19 <Ege> kaz: it is not endorsed by W3C. It is implicitly endorsed by the working group
12:36:12 <Ege> ml: so normative notes do not require implementations?
12:38:45 <McCool_> acl ml
12:38:48 <McCool_> ack ml
12:39:18 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/cla/ CLA for CGs
12:39:38 <Ege> zk: CG allows external people to contribute
12:39:39 <kaz> s/CLA/Contributors License Agreement (CLA)/
12:40:16 <citrullin> present+
12:40:25 <cris> present+
12:40:44 <kaz> present+ David_Ezell
12:41:10 <Ege> zk: Ben, do you have an input on where this development should continue?
12:41:24 <dape> q+
12:41:26 <Ege> kaz: my general recommendation is to go for REC
12:41:30 <Ege> ack z
12:41:53 <benfrancis> q+
12:42:05 <Ege> kaz: we need to talk with AC reps before going for REC
12:42:29 <cris> q+
12:42:47 <Ege> ack m
12:43:33 <Ege> mm: the objection was about including in the browser
12:43:40 <zkis> q+
12:44:01 <Ege> q+
12:45:36 <McCool_> q+
12:46:13 <McCool_> ack d
12:46:34 <McCool_> ack b
12:46:43 <kaz> s/for REC/for REC, if we would like to publish our specs as the basis of implementations for WoT./
12:47:39 <Ege> dp: we want to have normative statements in our spec
12:48:07 <zkis> Thanks Ben, these were clear thoughts.
12:48:12 <McCool_> ack c
12:48:16 <Ege> bf: I think it does not have to be a standard, can be something on github
12:49:14 <Ege> ca: we actually have multiple implementations, dart and python
12:49:14 <kaz> s/we need to talk with AC reps before going for REC/for that purpose, we need to get the AC Review for REC transition, but we need to get AC Review for the proposed deliverables within the Charter as well./
12:50:30 <dape> q?
12:50:34 <McCool_> ack z
12:50:35 <Ege> ca: I agree with daniel that the REC would be too soon for us now
12:51:31 <kaz> s/in our spec/in our spec, but we had to switch from REC to a Note, so would prefer a normative Note./
12:51:43 <kaz> s/normative statements/normative language/
12:51:45 <kaz> q?
12:51:50 <kaz> ack e
12:53:01 <zkis> q?
12:53:04 <zkis> q+
12:53:06 <kaz> q+
12:53:46 <Ege> ek: REC does not mean that browsers have to implement it and we can reduce the scope to make it implementable in a browser
12:54:22 <cris> q+
12:54:42 <kaz> ack m
12:54:53 <Ege> mm: I can summarize. Scripting API editors prefer a non-REC resolution. There are opinions for an incubation.
12:55:02 <Ege> mm: I am worried about the patent policy
12:55:20 <zkis> q?
12:55:21 <dape> q?
12:55:32 <kaz> s/non-REC/normative Note/
12:55:53 <McCool_> (time check - we need to wrap up)
12:56:37 <McCool_> (no, we don't: sorry, still have an hour)
12:56:39 <McCool_> q?
12:56:45 <McCool_> ack z
12:56:50 <Ege> zk: we can follow what some apis do, like machine learning in the web
12:57:14 <Ege> ... aside security concerns, we can use a ws+http to make it possible in the browser
12:57:32 <Ege> kaz: It is nice to have participation from browser community
12:58:25 <McCool_> q+
12:59:16 <McCool_> ack k
12:59:59 <Ege> bf: why not letting the webpages generate fetch api etc. from TD?
13:01:00 <kaz> i/why not/kaz: and now I'd like to ask you about which problem is bigger for you with Scripting API, 1. browser vendors would not implement it or 2. we already have TD as a standard data model and we don't need to have a standardized API for WoT/
13:02:22 <kaz> s/why not/the latter. why not/
13:02:37 <kaz> s/1./(1)/
13:02:41 <kaz> s/2./(2)/
13:03:36 <kaz> ack k
13:03:38 <kaz> ack c
13:03:39 <kaz> ack m
13:04:26 <kaz> ca: wondering if CLA can't be applied to normative Notes
13:04:44 <kaz> kaz: CLA is defined for CGs and not included in the W3C Process
13:05:29 <kaz> mm: the type of documents itself is W3C Process issue
13:06:13 <McCool_> q?
13:06:17 <cris> +1
13:06:21 <kaz> kaz: yeah, so I'd like you all to start with thinking about the 4 viewpoints, standard or not, protected by pp or not, implementations required or not, endorsed by W3C or not
13:07:00 <kaz> mm: defining the purpose of the Scripting API is important
13:07:05 <McCool_> defining the purpose is important, then the pub option
13:07:15 <citrullin> +1 More or less
13:07:16 <kaz> s/mm: defining the purpose of the Scripting API is important//
13:07:30 <McCool_> one purpose where a standard is useful is automation
13:07:31 <citrullin> +q
13:08:06 <kaz> s/defining/mm: defining/
13:08:15 <kaz> s/one purpose/mm: one purpose/
13:08:27 <kaz> i/defining/scribenick: McCool_/
13:08:49 <McCool_> but for automation a simpler if-then system might be better than JS...
13:09:04 <kaz> s/but for/... but for/
13:09:28 <kaz> q?
13:10:31 <kaz> zk: value in Scripting API can provide patterns
13:10:42 <kaz> ... options for implementations of WoT applications
13:10:56 <kaz> s/patterns/patterns and/
13:11:21 <kaz> mm: we can brainstorm use cases and applications
13:11:31 <citrullin> -q
13:11:53 <kaz> ... maybe we should revisit the existing document again
13:12:06 <kaz> i/value/scribenick: kaz/
13:12:09 <McCool_> q?
13:12:13 <zkis> q?
13:12:37 <kaz> pb: having data locally and accessing the data using Scripting API is useful
13:12:53 <kaz> mm: accessing the local data is important in general
13:13:08 <kaz> pb: getting permission as well
13:13:56 <kaz> mm: related to key management for onboarding as well
13:14:03 <kaz> ... not only API per se
13:14:21 <kaz> ... let's go back to the agenda now
13:14:42 <kaz> ... my impression is going for normative Note for the next Charter
13:14:45 <dape> +1
13:14:53 <kaz> mm: any objections?
13:16:35 <McCool_> proposal: use a normative note for scripting in the next charter
13:16:47 <Ege> mm: any change requests?
13:17:18 <kaz> q?
13:17:19 <kaz> q+
13:19:29 <McCool_> resolution: use a Note including normative statements for the Scripting API deliverable in the next charter
13:19:42 <kaz> action: kaz to talk with PLH about that idea
13:21:35 <Ege> dp: can we have 20 minute slot in tpac?
13:21:41 <Ege> mm: per deliverable we plan 10 minutes
13:22:14 <kaz> i/can we/scribenick: Ege/
13:22:25 <Ege> topic: Charter Proposals
13:22:31 <kaz> s/can we/we still have two more points, so can we/
13:23:17 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/main/proposals/deliverable-proposals Deliverable Proposals
13:23:31 <kaz> subtopic: Discovery
13:23:46 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/proposals/deliverable-proposals/discovery.md discovery.md
13:23:53 <Ege> ek: can anyone create for spec or only the editors?
13:24:24 <kaz> q+
13:24:48 <kaz> i|can any|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1032 PR 1032 - Update Discovery Deliverable Proposal|
13:25:52 <kaz> mm: you can create a proposal
13:25:57 <kaz> kaz: agree
13:26:40 <kaz> ... as discussed yesterday, it's kind of brainstorming at this stage, so getting ideas is good. we can discuss the proposals during the TPAC meeting and the post-TPAC meeting./
13:26:51 <kaz> s|meeting./|meeting.|
13:27:08 <Ege> mm: geolocation has multiple solutions
13:27:28 <kaz> i/geolocation/(going back to the discussion on Discovery proposal)/
13:28:57 <kaz> (merged)
13:29:07 <kaz> subtopic: Security
13:29:52 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1031 PR 1031 - Create Security Deliverable Proposal
13:30:12 <kaz> i/you can create/scribenick: kaz/
13:30:25 <kaz> i/geolocation has/scribenick: Ege/
13:30:59 <Ege> q+
13:31:05 <kaz> ack k
13:31:13 <benfrancis> q+
13:31:18 <kaz> scribenick: kaz
13:31:27 <kaz> mm: (goes through the PR content)
13:31:53 <kaz> ek: which TF to discuss it?
13:32:09 <kaz> mm: security review to be put into one place
13:32:15 <kaz> ... one document to take a look
13:32:34 <kaz> ... should include security for TD, Discovery, etc.
13:33:26 <kaz> ... however, handling keys, etc., would impact Discovery spec specifically
13:33:46 <kaz> q?
13:33:49 <kaz> ack e
13:34:30 <kaz> bf: agree with general idea of consolidating security portion
13:34:57 <kaz> ... currently you got to read all the related specs
13:35:22 <mlagally_> q?
13:35:27 <mlagally_> q+
13:35:39 <citrullin> citrullin has joined #wot
13:35:39 <kaz> ... regarding the onboarding topic, I'm not really sure if it's the right topic, maybe discovery in general?
13:35:52 <citrullin> +q
13:35:59 <kaz> q+
13:36:07 <kaz> ack b
13:36:33 <kaz> mm: could be "onboarding during discovery"
13:36:34 <Ege> bf: I think this would make the specification more difficult to read since there would be too many interdependencies
13:36:54 <kaz> i/I think/scribenick: Ege/
13:37:18 <McCool_> q?
13:38:31 <Ege> ml: I am confused with the security information we have everywhere
13:38:37 <Ege> ack m
13:39:32 <kaz> ack cit
13:39:57 <mlagally_> s/I am confused with the security information we have everywhere/I support consolidating security documents into a single document or a section of the architecture or TD spec/
13:40:12 <Ege> cit: I think that informal documents to help and guide people for implementation would be a good option
13:42:08 <citrullin> s/good option/good option to resolve this conflict of ease of implementation vs. ease of security review. I see security as the more important point. Helping developer would be more of a topic for the CG.
13:42:36 <kaz> kaz: I'm OK with the Security&Privacy proposal itself and extending the content
13:43:36 <kaz> ... however, our procedure has been (1) generating requirements within the Security&Privacy Note, (2) distribute them to the normative specs, and (3) think about the detailed assertions and behaviors on the normative spec side
13:43:40 <Ege> mm: this makes architecture normative but some people want it informative
13:43:48 <Ege> q+
13:44:08 <McCool_> ack k
13:44:23 <kaz> i/this/... so I'm wondering if this proposal means we need to put the detailed considerations on the spec side back to the Security&Privacy Note./
13:44:33 <kaz> i/I'm OK/scribenick: kaz/
13:44:40 <mlagally_> q+
13:45:03 <kaz> i/this makes/scribenick: Ege/
13:47:33 <benfrancis> q+
13:47:42 <kaz> q+
13:48:10 <kaz> ack k
13:48:31 <mlagally_> ack m
13:48:34 <kaz> (discussion on the relationship among relates specs)
13:48:36 <Ege> mm: better to write detailed comments into comments
13:48:38 <Ege> ack e
13:49:23 <kaz> i/better to/kaz: sorry but let me ask how to record this discussion/
13:49:53 <kaz> s/mm: better to write detailed comments into comments/mm: let's record the details in the GitHub Issues for today./
13:50:04 <kaz> i/sorry but/scribenick: kaz/
13:50:28 <kaz> i/details/scribenick: Ege/
13:50:51 <McCool_> q?
13:50:58 <McCool_> ack b
13:51:00 <kaz> s/GitHub Issues/GitHub PR's comment area/
13:51:52 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1031#issuecomment-1239415980 McCool's comments
13:52:00 <kaz> subtopic: Profile
13:52:24 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/proposals/deliverable-proposals/profiles.md profiles.md
13:52:34 <McCool_> q+
13:53:19 <benfrancis> q+
13:53:22 <Ege> q+
13:53:41 <kaz> ack m
13:53:56 <kaz> ml: (gives explanations)
13:54:08 <kaz> mm: issue with versioning, etc.
13:54:10 <kaz> q+
13:55:04 <kaz> ... each profile may need its own compatibility requirements
13:55:53 <kaz> bf: could consider extension by reference
13:56:26 <kaz> ... regarding digital twin profile and cloud profile
13:56:40 <kaz> ... I'm implementing digital twins using the core profile
13:56:53 <kaz> ... what specifically needed for them?
13:56:53 <McCool_> q+
13:57:03 <kaz> qq+ mlagally_
13:57:06 <kaz> ack ml
13:57:07 <Zakim> mlagally_, you wanted to react to McCool_
13:57:07 <McCool_> qq+
13:57:32 <kaz> ml: individual scope to be discussed
13:57:49 <kaz> mm: hoping longer discussion
13:57:55 <kaz> ... one word is not enough
13:58:19 <kaz> ... it's a list of possible profiles we might be working on
13:58:23 <kaz> q?
13:58:25 <kaz> ack mc
13:58:37 <kaz> ack Mc
13:58:37 <Zakim> McCool_, you wanted to react to mlagally_
13:58:52 <kaz> ack b
13:59:00 <kaz> bf: at the moment, don't really agree...
13:59:26 <kaz> ... CoAP profile and constraint device profile should be similar and possible, though
13:59:36 <McCool_> ack b
13:59:44 <kaz> ek: general comment
13:59:59 <kaz> ... initial work of WoT is removing IoT silos
14:00:07 <McCool_> (time check)
14:00:43 <kaz> ... so don't think it would be good to create another kind of silos on the top of WoT
14:01:09 <kaz> ... if we need to have profiles based on each use case, that would not be good
14:01:14 <kaz> q?
14:01:19 <kaz> qq+ mlagally_
14:01:22 <kaz> ack ml
14:01:24 <Zakim> mlagally_, you wanted to react to b
14:01:38 <kaz> ml: it's just an example, can be removed
14:01:47 <kaz> ack e
14:01:57 <kaz> mm: please make another update
14:02:06 <kaz> ... and people can give further comments
14:02:10 <kaz> ml: ok
14:02:15 <kaz> q?
14:02:15 <Ege> ek: my comment is that we should not have vertical profiles per use case
14:02:47 <Ege> ek: it will lead to fragmentation on top of our own specification
14:02:59 <kaz> ack k
14:04:06 <kaz> kaz: agree we update the proposal, and for that purpose, we should remember we need to clarify what the objectives and motivations of "WoT Profile" is
14:06:49 <kaz> [adjourned]
14:06:57 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:06:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/07-wot-minutes.html kaz
14:50:35 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #wot
16:30:51 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot
17:05:04 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #wot
17:10:56 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #wot
18:45:34 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #wot