Meeting minutes
Organization
Kaz: we should clarify our policy on the WG activity, deliverables and contributions (potentially from outside of the WG)
… when will we talk about that?
… today, tomorrow or Thursday?
McCool: we'll talk about liaisons tomorrow
… and discuss the policy as well
Kaz: what about the W3C internal groups?
… included in the liaison discussion?
McCool: yeah
Kaz: ok
WG Extension
McCool: we made resolution for 4mo extension the other day
… and then had some more discussion
<McCool> draft updated schedule
McCool: Kaz, when to publish the CR drafts?
Kaz: found yet another problem with the auto publication system
… so manual publication would be quicker in the end
… so expected pubdate is Thursday, Jan 19
McCool: ok
… (goes through the draft schedule on PR 1049)
wot PR 1049 - Update wg-2021-extension-plan.md
McCool: the issue is that expected REC date is June 29, which exceeds the 4mo extension
… so PLH suggested we aim 6mo extension instead
… but Sebastian would like to stick to 4mo extension
Ege: Siemens is concerned about 6mo extension
… would start new work on OPC UA, ASHRAE, etc., asap
McCool: can we ask to start the new Charter on June 1 if possible?
Kaz: yes
… on the other hand, if we miss the deadline with 4mo...
McCool: wouldn't it be impossible to publish PR by the end of the Charter period
… and publish the REC after the rechartering?
McCool: Do we need resolution as WG for REC transition?
McCool: let's give people time until tomorrow
<McCool> https://
Lagally: we are microplanning where we already have 1 year extension. Plus or minus 1 month does not change anything. We should increase quality and coverage
… we need better estimate of remaining effort
… what is the phase between PR and REC? what is happening there
… who fixes the issues if there is no WG anymore?
McCool: For the 3 specs in the PR, I do not expect any major work
… before REC publication, a formal objection can happen
… so no change to the documents
… between CR and PR only testing
Lagally: I am not proposing to extend due to profiles
McCool: getting another WD would be good as well
… let's discuss tomorrow when Sebastian is also here
Kaz: W3M meeting happens at the same time as main call
… so that means that remember W3M would review this extension next week. I need to talk with PLH again about when to put this as W3M agenda.
… I should check with Philippe
Kaz: We have failed to keep our schedule a couple of times. That's partly my own fault, but we should be careful about the planning this time specifically, because this is the last possible extension for this Charter period.
McCool: even if we get 6 months, I do not want to think of the 2 months. It should be a buffer
Registry Track
W3C Process Document (2023 draft) - 6.5.2 Publishing Registries
Ege: (goes through his slides, and explain the definition of "Registries" based on the W3C Process Document)
Kaz: I'm kind of confused. Why do you want/need to give this presentation during this Charter discussion now?
... From my viewpoint, what we should do now is clarifying the expected deliverables and relationship among related deliverables including the WoT Binding Templates spec so taht we can describe our deliveables within the new WG Charter rather than suddenly starting the discussion on the Registry Track specifically for the Binding Templates in detail.
Cristiano: you mentioned the WebCodecs Codec Registry as an exampled
… how to add new entry to it?
Ege: can use PR for that purpose
McCool: we're talking about the mechanism
… can think about several possibilities
<cris> agree
McCool: Web Codec Registry and FLAC WebCodec
… which would be normative?
Ege: Registry itself is not normative
McCool: ok
Ege: it's just rule of how to manage the table
… like the IANA registry, registries themselves don't do anything
Lagally: why is this proposal made now?
Ege: can explain some idea on the Binding Templates
… Core Binding document as a REC Track spec
Lagally: coming back to the example you show
… if you don't require any WG approval to update the registry
… some company-specific (=non-standard) entry could be added?
Ege: should be prevented
Ben: from practical viewpoint, it would make sense for protocol binding purposes
… my slight concern is potential fragmentation
… might be going to be too easy to create a new binding
… what would be the binding templates to be standardized
… profiles could be application-specific
… DID also has registry mechanism
… and has similar problem
<cris> +1 for the downsides of applying this to profiles
Kaz: Again, "Registry" is just a possible mechanism for our spec documents. What we need to do is rather thinking about what to be described by the Binding Templates spec.
... As I already mentioned during the Binding Calls several times, we could consider the potential usage of the Registry Track for keyword registration purposes.
... However, you should have more discussion about the content and the structure of the Binding Templates spec itself during the TD/Binding calls to see what kind of data definition and procedure to be described by the "Core document" and what kind of information to be described by the potential "Registry documents" before directly proposing the idea of using the Registry mechanism during this Charter meeting.
Mizushima: how do you think the Binding Templates document should be?
Ege: explain the procedure better
… could use the registry table
… to manage the entities
… and core Binding Templates document as a REC Track doc
… or Core document also a registry track doc
… not sure about the difference at the moment
Deliverables
Discovery
McCool: (goes through the PR)
… Discovery Updates, Discovery CoAP Directory, Discovery Queries, Discovery Integrity Projection and Geolocation
… Geolocation would impact multiple points
… would ask you all for comments on the PR
Security
McCool: (goes through the PR)
… Onboarding
… Security Scheme Ontology
Kaz: do you mean actual public ontology service by "Security Scheme Ontology"?
McCool: equivalent security scheme to be handled equally
… just one possible way for that purpose
… will do some more PRs for actual deliverables
… to have further discussion tomorrow
[adjourned]