Meeting minutes
PRs
Current situation
McCool: two PRs based on the discussion yesterday
Lagally: we're discussing high-level points like scope. right?
… there are detailed discussions during the TF calls as well
Sebastian: we didn't have the WoT main call, and had to have additional discussion during the TD call
McCool: need to kind of fork off some of the discussions
… basically, could summarize which way to go
… have Binding Templates as a separate spec or not
Ege: wanted to answer to Lagally
… couldn't have discussion during the main call and had to have one during the TD call
… also didn't have enough time for the discussion itself
Lagally: ok
… however, the discussion should happen during the main call
McCool: note that this is a whole WG call specifically about the WG Charter
… my proposal is managing some of the discussions offline
… and finalize the draft WG Charter during the main call next week
Lagally: ok
… what about the remaining PRs?
McCool: we've not done everything yet
Kaz: (gives a comment on general policy for charter generation)
McCool: yeah, you're right
… let's look into the PRs then
PR 74
PR 74 - Add TD while removing binding
McCool: (goes through the PR)
McCool: this part (and profiling mechanisms to ...) might be problematic
… is this intentional?
Ege: that's kind of oversight
McCool: two issue I see here
… this says profile mechanism within TD
… also another entry on Profile (of course) mentions Profile
… maybe need to replace this part
as well as include the core binding and profiling mechanisms to increase interoperability.
Ege: there was some discussion during the TD call yesterday
… how TD and Profile work together
… maybe it would be better to say "Core Binding" and "Core Profile"
McCool: a bit confused
… using the same term within two different specs is confusing
Lagally: would rather say addressing use cases, etc.
… without diving into the details
McCool: ok
… so you think this description in the proposal is too detail
Lagally: right
McCool: Ege, could you revise the text?
Ege: I can remove the test there
… but there was discussion on how to deal with Profile-related topics during the TD call yesterday
… mechanism happen with keywords
McCool: my preference is removing this text (as well as...) first
Ege: ok with removing that text
… but the bigger question is what would be applicable
McCool: don't disagree but maybe some additional description outside the Charter
Lagally: that would imply yet another deliverable...
… why don't we simply remove the sentence itself
McCool: that would be fine
Kaz: I'm OK with removing that sentence itself
<mlagally> +1
Kaz: However, the bigger question is (as I've been mentioning) that we need clarify the relationship among all the WoT specs with each other
McCool: right
… Architecture should describe the relationship but the description is not enough
… anyway, regarding the Charter text, would suggest we removing the text
Ben: I'm also OK with removing the sentence itself
… but we should clarify the relationship between Binding and Profiling
… think it would be better to describe both Binding and Profiling within the Thing Description spec
McCool: having same definition within two places would be problematic
Ben: the "Update" may remove the overlap
Lagally: the Profiling mechanism is discussed by the Profile TF, but can be discussed by all
… want to collaborate with the other TFs
… discussions on what to go for which spec
… still think we should have a bit more dynamic document
… some kind of concern there
… if TD defines possible protocols, we need to wait until the TD spec reaches REC
McCool: we have options
Kaz: btw, we need clarification about what "Profile" and "Profile (Update)" mean
… "Profile" is modification to the current version
… and "Profile (Update)" is a newer version
… right?
McCool: right
… let me add some changes to the PR 74 based on the discussion
… (looks into the HTML for PR 74)
… (remove the sentence from the "Thing Description" entry)
… maybe someone can create another PR for further modification
… (shows the diff)
McCool: still missing information
… what "Expected completion" means?
Kaz: should be the estimated date of the REC publication
Kaz: that is related to our schedule.md for the current Charter and the next Charter period
McCool: right
Kaz: btw, given all the deliverables entries don't have that information, we can think about the date later and put estimated dates at once for all of them
McCool: yeah...
… we need to think about the publication process
… including CR->PR->REC transitions
Kaz: and all the dates should be discussed by each TF offline
McCool: yeah...
Kaz: note that specifying the dates using Quarters is fine for the Charter :)
McCool: ah, yes
… for the moment, let's merge this PR
merged
PR 73
PR 73 - Remove reusable connections term from charter
McCool: would suggest we simply remove "reusable connections" to avoid confusion
Ben: that's fine
… the question was rather we didn't share the same image on what it meant
Lagally: quick comment
… a bit concerned about repeated payloads
… would take this (reusable connections) out
McCool: ok
… two options here
… but just want to go for removing this
Lagally: ok
merged
Next step
McCool: don't want to have more meetings for Charter discussion
… would propose we decide main PRs via emails
… make decision about the process and finalize the draft Charter
… let me finish up the other PRs which should be relatively easier
… will make necessary additional PRs
… maybe could delay until the next main call
… but could make decision by the end of Tuesday
… not changing the decision policy
Kaz: I personally think we need some more discussion for the Charter but would suggest we finalize the draft Charter during the main call next Wednesday assuming you, McCool, will work on further cleaning up.
McCool: ok
… sounds reasonable
Ege: also agree we're getting close
<Ege> w3c/
Ege: but probably we still need some more dedicated discussion
… for example about issue 16 above
<sebastian> I have to move to another meeting. Bye
McCool: my personal opinion is moving the normative things into the Architecture
… e.g., Onboarding
… but OK with generating a separate deliverable
McCool: we can decide which way to go next week
Lagally: responding to Ege
… please read my comments on issue 16
… clear terminology and clear definitions
McCool: we're out of time and close the meeting
Ben: have to follow up next time
… curious about the next step of the Charter
McCool: AC review followed by the W3M/horizontal reviews
Kaz: would suggest we continue the discussion during the main call next Wednesday
… and see if we still need further dedicated discussion at that time
McCool: yeah
… after some more cleaning up
[adjourned]