– DRAFT –
WoT-IG/WG

Minutes

<kaz> Oct-19

McCool: Minutes look good
… any changes?
… -> none -> minutes approved

Quick updates

Daylight Saving Change

McCool: Daylight Saving Time Change coming soon
… please use calendar entries
… Calls based on US Time
… outside US time: times might change

Sebastian: The W3C calendar should be correct in all cases

Ege: We might need to update website

McCool: Yes, please update. Things will shift around

IIWOT Workshop

McCool: w.r.t CCNC2023 International Workshop
… didn't get any more feedback
… will ping them again

Cancellations

McCool: Cancellations and updates
… Kaz is not available next Monday
… I added cancellations for security, and discovery besides scripting

McCool: I updated cancellations for December-January also

<kaz> kaz: all the TF Moderators should update the cancellation information

<kaz> Cancellations

How to deal with new PRs for WoT Use Cases?

Kaz: We are getting new PRs
… should decide how to resolve those new items

McCool: re-instate the use-case call? On Thursday?
… overlaps editors call

Lagally: Too many calls
… can we hold of these calls till December?

<mlagally_> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pulls

McCool: December 6 ? tentatively...

Ege: My input more relevant for next charter discussions

Lagally: Are assessment ... should have a good understanding
… like geolocation

McCool: don't think it blocks CR

Kaz: let's aim for December 6
… if people feel we need earlier discussions .. please state it in PR/issue

Resolutions

CR Transition for TD 1.1

McCool: Implementation report is not required for CR

<McCool> wot-thing-description PR 1730 - Update Implementation Report and Prep for CR

<kaz> wot-thing-description PR 1726 - Enumerate At-Risk Items

<MMC shows rendered version>

McCool: no respec errors
… rule and publication checkers passed
… it adds at risk sections
… like OAuth, internationalization, ...
… we have 454 assertions
… about 20 left
… I think we are in good shape

McCool: Would like to merge this PR
… and go for CR

Sebastian: Thank you for the contributions / testfest etc
… I agree, we are in good shape

Kaz: CR transition does not require perfect results
… we just need to provide templates for getting implementation.
… the more important at this stage is that we need to clarify the features at-risk within the SoTD section like McCool did

McCool: BTW, searching for assertions are not all... rows may add assertions also

McCool: previous reports get ingratiated as well

Lagally: How many assertions did we have in TD1.0

<mlagally_> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/20a66ccef95be67e5848ed51a9656bed9f62e12a/testing/all-TD-implementations.csv

McCool: don't have number handy
… but I assume fewer

Lagally: I created all-TD-implementations.csv
… to see what comes in from implementors
… "Nr of XXX" means no response

McCool: old or changed .. maybe

McCool: in new report those are ignored
… they are not counted anymore

Lagally: Would like to have transparency

McCool: impl report is not a blocker for CR anyway
… our policy is to count distinct code bases

Lagally: need to check with old providers of results

McCool: need to work on testimonial

McCool: "Contribution Member organization" line should be added to each report that is provided
… let's get back to CR proposal for TD
… I would like to call the question whether we are fine with it

Kaz: I suggest we explicitly "draft" to all implementation reports

McCool: Good point, will do that

<McCool> proposal: merge PR https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1730 and publish the file in publication/ver11/5-cr/Overview.html as a CR Candidate for the Web of Things (WoT) Thing Description 1.1 deliverable.

<sebastian> +1

<Ege> +1

<McCool> proposal: merge PR https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1730 and publish the file in publication/ver11/5-cr/Overview.html as a CR Candidate for the Web of Things (WoT) Thing Description 1.1 deliverable. In addition, add the word "DRAFT" to the title of the implementation report.

RESOLUTION: merge PR https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1730 and publish the file in publication/ver11/5-cr/Overview.html as a CR Candidate for the Web of Things (WoT) Thing Description 1.1 deliverable. In addition, add the word "DRAFT" to the title of the implementation report.

McCool: TD for CR is done!

Sebastian: Thanks everyone

Lagally: Question: Outcome to TD investigations normative vs informative ?

Sebastian: 4 people scanned all assertions

<sebastian> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1722#issuecomment-1284364795

Sebastian: summary -> no conflicts nor problem

Lagally: Okay, thanks!

CR Transition for WoT Discovery

<McCool> wot-discovery PR 430 - CR publication prep and IR finalization

McCool: discovery has more at risk assertions
… quite a few things are at risk
… CoAP and UDP for example
… issues around sorting, date-times
… concerned about discovery behavior and bootstrapping .. but I think we can resolve them
… we have about 4-5 implementations
… about 20% of assertions are not passing
… some things are eve about errors
… dropping some assertions is not a big deal
… a lot of security assertions are at risk... some used to be informative in last charter.. we might need to turn them back

Lagally: How to resolve open issues/assertions ?
… target new PlugFest / TestFest in December ?

McCool: or ask for new implementations or update existing impls
… for TestFest we do not have a big window
… Let's discuss this next call

Sebastian: +1 for having another TestFest

Lagally: +1

<kaz> updated publication schedule

Kaz: I am ok with the proposal itself as usual
… however, please remember we need to update the publication schedule
… clarify further schedule
… after CR
… for PR and REC

<McCool> proposal: merge PR https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/430 and publish the file in publication/ver11/3-cr/Overview.html as a CR Candidate for the Web of Things (WoT) Discovery deliverable. In addition, add the word "DRAFT" to the title of the implementation report.

<McCool> proposal: merge PR https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/430 and publish the file in publication/ver11/4-cr/Overview.html as a CR Candidate for the Web of Things (WoT) Discovery deliverable. In addition, add the word "DRAFT" to the title of the implementation report.

<McCool> proposal: merge PR https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/430 and publish the file in publication/4-cr/Overview.html as a CR Candidate for the Web of Things (WoT) Discovery deliverable. In addition, add the word "DRAFT" to the title of the implementation report.

McCool: Any objections?

RESOLUTION: merge PR https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/430 and publish the file in publication/4-cr/Overview.html as a CR Candidate for the Web of Things (WoT) Discovery deliverable. In addition, add the word "DRAFT" to the title of the implementation report.

McCool: none
… discovery is done

CR Transition for WoT Architecture 1.1

<kaz> wot-architecture PR 858 - Prep for CR, finalize IR and document at-risk items

McCool: Discussed PRs on table during profile/arch call
… consensus was to integrate them
… resolving issues in arch call tomorrow
… agree by email
… don't object means approve

Lagally: Couple of options
… use current draft as the baseline
… or current draft is ok
… what if we don't conclude/agree tomorrow

Sebastian: I think we are close to consensus
… I see just 2 topics ...
… I am optimistic

<McCool> proposal: The current Architecture draft will be finalized tomorrow Nov 27 in the Architecture TF call and a call for resolution for CR transition will be made by email immediately after the meeting. If there are no objections within 24 hours of the email the Architecture draft will proceed with CR transition.

McCool: If we get objections we need to handle it next week

<McCool> proposal: The current Architecture draft will be finalized tomorrow Nov 27 in the Architecture TF call and a call for resolution for CR transition will be made by email immediately after the meeting. If there are no objections within 24 hours of the email the Architecture draft will proceed with CR transition. If there is an objection we will adjust the schedule and discuss in the next main call.

Kaz: as Lagally mentioned, there are several possibilities at the moment

<mlagally_> Lagally's proposal: use the current architecture CR as the baseline and include those PRs that we can get unanimous consensus

Kaz: So "given" could be added upfront

<McCool> proposal: Use current Architecture CR draft will be finalized tomorrow Nov 27 in the Architecture TF call by merging those PRs current on the table that have unanimous consensus and a call for resolution for CR transition will be made by email immediately after the meeting. If there are no objections within 24 hours of the email the Architecture draft will proceed with CR transition.

<McCool> proposal: Use current Architecture CR draft will be finalized tomorrow Oct 27 in the Architecture TF call by merging those PRs current on the table that have unanimous consensus and a call for resolution for CR transition will be made by email immediately after the meeting. If there are no objections within 24 hours of the email the Architecture draft will proceed with CR transition.

<McCool> proposal: Use current Architecture CR draft will be finalized tomorrow Oct 27 in the Architecture TF call by merging those PRs currently on the table that have unanimous consensus and a call for resolution for CR transition will be made by email immediately after the meeting. If there are no objections within 24 hours of the email the Architecture draft will proceed with CR transition.

<mlagally_> 7 PRs in https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pulls

Kaz: Note we're out of time now.

<McCool> proposal: Extend this meeting for 30m.

RESOLUTION: Extend this meeting for 30m.

<McCool> proposal: Use current Architecture CR draft will be finalized tomorrow Oct 27 in the Architecture TF call by merging those PRs currently on the table (https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pulls) that have unanimous consensus and a call for resolution for CR transition will be made by email immediately after the meeting. If there are no objections within 24 hours of the email the Architecture draft will proceed with CR transition.

McCool: any objections?

<McCool> proposal: Use the current Architecture CR draft as the basis of a CR to be finalized tomorrow Oct 27 in the Architecture TF call by merging those PRs currently on the table (https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pulls) that have unanimous consensus and a call for resolution for CR transition will be made by email immediately after the meeting. If there are no objections within 24 hours of the email the Architecture draft will proceed with CR transition.

<kaz> ("htose PRs" above means "PR 865, 863, 862, 860, 858, 856 and 855")

<McCool> : Use the current Architecture CR draft as the basis of a CR to be finalized tomorrow Oct 27 in the Architecture TF call by merging those PRs currently on the table (wot-architecture PRs 865, 863, 862, 860, 858, 856 and 855) that have unanimous consensus and a call for resolution for CR transition will be made by email immediately after the meeting. If there are no objections within 24 hours of the email the Architecture draft will proceed with CR [transition.

Lagally: will add "by CR" label to PRs

RESOLUTION: Use the current Architecture CR draft as the basis of a CR to be finalized tomorrow Oct 27 in the Architecture TF call by merging those PRs currently on the table (PRs 865, 863, 862, 860, 858, 856 and 855) that have unanimous consensus and a call for resolution for CR transition will be made by email immediately after the meeting. If there are no objections within 24 hours of the email the Architecture draft will proceed with CR transition.

McCool: please attend Architecture call or comment on PRs

Revisiting how to deal with Profile for this Charter period

McCool: include Profiles in next charter

Lagally: Correct, bring Profile to REC in beginning of next charter

<mlagally_> Lagally's proposal: to affirm the intention to actively collaborate and proceed with publishing the Profile as a REC as soon as possible in the next charter.

Lagally: When will next charter start?

McCool: Not sure.. charter might take a bit..
… as soon as possible

Kaz: Suggest to split discussions about this charter and next charter
… need to clarify schedule
… potentially we could consider extension
… suggest to focus on current charter period

McCool: Resolution about what to include in next charter...

Kaz: charter discussions should be separated also

McCool: Suggest Profile to be a deliverable for next charter

<mlagally_> Lagally's proposal: Extend the current WG charter for 6 months to complete all 4 normative deliverables to REC

<McCool> proposal: To include Profiles as a deliverable in the next WG charter, and proceed with publishing the Profile as a REC as soon as possible in the next charter.

Lagally: current proposal is too fuzzy
… I don't think it is good enough

McCool: date for new charter in place?

Kaz: rechartering procedure takes a few months
… so we're already delayed for the end of this extended Charter period. However, the question here is "How to deal with the WoT Profile specification during this Charter period?". So I strongly would suggest we concentrate on that regardless of the potential extension. for end of January

McCool: I think we agreed to not publish Profile in this charter
… issue is timing
… need to work on charter draft

Lagally: I am concerned
… a lot of uncertainty
… I believe we can get a new charter extension

<McCool> proposal: To include Profiles as a deliverable in the next WG charter, if it cannot be completed in this charter.

Lagally: we could also include binding templates

McCool: extension might not happen ... as a fallback still possible

Sebastian: Agree with MMC
… surprised that we talk about extensions now

<McCool> (don't forget... extensions take the same amount of time as a new charter now...)

Kaz: We mix up questions
… update schedule
… how to deal with profile in next charter
… need to clarify updated schedule for this charter period first
… we can clarify schedule till Jan 31, 2023
… no one says we should stop working on Profile right away. Right?

Lagally: My vision
… TestFest in December
… we do interop tests
… Profile "could" become CR candidate

Lagally: We can work on Profile once Arch is stable

Cristiano: w.r.t. extension
… new features in TD are postponed with an extension
… we have label "next charter" ...
… people are asking us for these new features

McCool: We could wait for November to make CR for Profile
… getting extension takes as long as a new charter
… maybe we should finish charter draft .. and include Profile in new charter

<Zakim> mlagally_, you wanted to react to cris_

Lagally: We have a process with use-cases and requirements
… I suggest we follow the process

<mlagally_> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/USE-CASES/coverage.csv

<mlagally_> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/REQUIREMENTS/requirements-summary.csv

Lagally: we need use-cases & requirements .. not just developers asking for a feature

<Zakim> McCool, you wanted to react to mlagally_

McCool: use-case for me is a set of proposed requirements

Kaz: Please split related, but different, issues
… this charter is this charter and next charter is next charter

McCool: We are discussing options to get Profile done

Kaz: encourage ML to provide schedule what is done by Nov, Dec, and Jan

Sebastian: Focus on CR for Profile within this charter
… pick it up in next charter

<McCool> proposal: To aim to progress the Profile specfication to CR status in the current charter, then to include Profiles as a deliverable in the next WG charter, if it cannot be completed in this charter.

<McCool> proposal: To aim to progress the Profile specification to CR status in the current charter, then to include Profiles as a deliverable in the next WG charter, if it cannot be completed in this charter.

Lagally: Arch call tomorrow. I can come up with schedule till tomorrow
… suggest to not decide today

McCool: I am ok with that but only after the Arch discussions are settled first

Lagally: Okay

Sebastian: Support to work on Profile in this charter and finish in next charter

Ege: I suggest to ask WG for 2 implementations from consumer side
… this was lacking

McCool: let's discuss this tomorrow

Kaz: No resolution needed today?

McCool: Correct

Kaz: for next charter period we need more discussions

Sebastian: Should finalize new charter soon

Kaz: for new charter discussion... I've started to think we should have dedicated meetings. Maybe not a whole week but a few hours.

McCool: A draft first would be good starting point

Lagally: For preparation for tomorrow. Contributions from Siemens for consumer?

Sebastian: request should go to everybody ..

<kaz> [adjourned]