– DRAFT –
WoT Profile

Organization

Lagally: we can use the labels to focus on

McCool: we did not talk about the wide review so far

Minutes Review

<kaz> Jan-11

<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/314

Lagally: McCool, did you have time to look at the security PR

<mlagally> will be reviewed in the security call and revisited next week.

WD Publication

<mlagally> https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-profile/

<kaz> 18 Jan 2023 WD

Kaz: we should use the dated url as I have put in irc

Lagally: hopefully we will get review comments

Lagally: thank you all for the contributions

wide review

McCool: if we start wide review after feb, we cannot meet the schedule

<kaz> kaz: if the current WD is stable enough, we can ask for wide reviews

McCool: how much time to leave for wide review?

Kaz: it depends on the group

Lagally: let's write what we need to do

McCool: we should look at the main conf wiki

McCool: we need to tell which parts are stable

Lagally: we should write an explainer by next week

McCool: we can ask for review of wd or editor's draft

<kaz> Wide review guide

McCool: wd makes more sense

Lagally: I think so too, let's do a resolution on that

<McCool_> proposal: ask for review of WD version, then ask for incremental reviews as needed if we make additional changes

RESOLUTION: ask for review of WD version, then ask for incremental reviews as needed if we make additional changes

<kaz> wide review request for Architecture 1.1

<kaz> Explainer for Architecture 1.1

<kaz> Wide review guide

Kaz: I suggest you look at the wide review guide

Lagally: maybe an editor's call would be good for this?

McCool: following the instructions in the guide is enough and we should not need an editor's call

Kaz: we can also do a tutorial before starting the next charter on how the process works

Ege: I would second that

Lagally: Issue 358 shows the to do items

McCool: I suggest that we cleanup the existing explainers

Lagally: I can copy the explainer content and I mark it as a draft

Ege: I am not sure if the document is considered stable. The security scheme flexibility and async actions are not stable

Lagally: we should get full list

McCool: stable means not being changed all the time

McCool: We can mention this as editor's note

Kaz: would be nicer to add clarification within both the spec document and in the explainer and the wide review request. If it's difficult, we should add clarification at least within the wide review request.

Issue 221 - Security Schemes are too loose

Issue 222 - Security Requirements for WebHook Consumer

Issue 224 - subscribeallevents security requirements

Issue 220 - List of required Security Schemes

Ege: I think that security is still too loose and I have the issues above

McCool: I think that the webhook consumer would use the same as Thing

Lagally: That would be my assumption

Ege: I don't think it makes sense, I will mention it in the issue

<kaz> kaz: btw, we should apply some appropriate label(s) to those security-related issues

Lagally: I have created this issue 359 as a phonebook of security related issues

<kaz> Issue 359 - Security - open issues

Lagally: please provide a recommendation on what to pick

Kaz: btw, what do you mean by the "P1" label?

Lagally: high priority issue to be discussed next week

Kaz: should add a comment on that to the label description itself

(just added clarification to the label description)

<McCool_> (1 minute left)

extended schedule

Kaz: suggest we update the schedule for further discussion on expected implementations, node-wot feedback, etc.
… and continue the discussion on the technical details based on that schedule

[adjourned]