Meeting minutes
Organization
McCool: Charter discussion or Architecture discussion
… can have discussion as part of the Architecture discussion
… then get back to the Charter discussion
… but we need a bigger picture for the Charter anyway
Lagally: why don't we merge the agenda topics?
Lagally: what is the goal of *this* call then?
… Charter for AC review?
… or Architecture spec?
McCool: we need to make decision about whether Architecture should be normative or not
Lagally: it's a material for the Charter, isn't it?
McCool: we can't make decision by the Architecture TF by themselves
… there are bigger categories within the Charter
… some of the topics don't necessarily need to be normative
Lagally: what if once forget about normative vs informative
… if look into the Charter scope, it says "Update Existing Specifications", etc.
… my question is who would consume the specs
… would like to see concrete examples
… e.g., cloud scenarios
McCool: let's go through the queue...
… we're incrementally updating the Charter
… should mention cloud scenarios in addition to digital twins?
Ege: should put that kind of proposal to the Charter text
… think cloud scenario is already possible with the current mechanism
… is that an issue of wording?
Draft WG Charter
Lagally: we have same mission we started 7 years ago
… then let's see the motivation
… the text doesn't really say anything...
… in my opinion, this still description is not enough
McCool: don't against with new PRs for mission and motivation
… you need to raise PRs for further improvement
… there are other PRs already
… personally would focus on the existing GitHub issues
… some of them are important and some others are minor
Lagally: do you have a chance to look into latest PRs?
… would like to discuss Architecture spec
McCool: I do want to discuss existing document structure
… it relates to not only the Architecture spec but also all the WoT specs
… would like to analyze the whole structure
… some of the stuff within the Architecture could be moved to another spec, for example
… personally think we still need one normative spec even if we make Architecture informative
Lagally: the question is what problem to be resolved here?
McCool: (explains the history)
… there is an issue with testability
… we've been asking the group participants to provide implementations
Lagally: the question is related to the security section, so would make sense to move it to another spec?
McCool: that's true...
… I've been paraphrasing Ege's comments
… some of the assertions could be moved over to the TD
… but other things, like Scripting
Lagally: ok
… Scripting is not a problem within the Architecture
McCool: normative assertion about runtime within Architecture
Lagally: would object we mandate Scripting API
Kaz: think we should rather start with the third item here
… "Where can existing *categories* of normative content be moved, in theory?"
… if there is no normative section for Architecture in the end, that spec will be automatically informative
McCool: right
… note that there might be something which would not be movable within Architecture
Sebastian: 3 points
… since we're thinking about new Charter
… we should learn from what we did for the previous Charters
… Architecture spec had been always controversial
Lagally: what do you mean?
Sebastian: we have to get AC review and Wide reviews
(Sebastian's voice is breaking, and will type in)
<sebastian> We should learn from our current situation of the charter. In the past we had already contorversal discussion why we should have Arch as REC. We should simplify our standardization work in the next charter and concentrate on the actual deliverables like TD and Discovery.
Ege: one of the arguments is Ben's comment
… difficulty with implementations, e.g., section 8
Lagally: if developers overlook requirements for security, security, etc., can see the TD spec, etc.
McCool: so clearer reference would help
Lagally: right
McCool: ReSpec doesn't let us refer to specific sections, and that's a problem
McCool: given we have less than 20 mins, seems we don't have consensus about the goal for this meeting
… should we see the Architecture spec as Kaz suggested?
… would organize the discussion better
McCool: personally think the draft Charter is getting close for the AC review
… one option is (as suggested yesterday) keep the Architecture normative for the moment and see the content later
McCool: another option is using a few more weeks to clarify the issue before the AC review
… any opinions?
Lagally: coming back to the Charter itself
… (gives his own views)
… from Oracle's viewpoint, we need a good balance between the device side and the cloud side
McCool: agree it's an important question
… we need to improve the mission, background and scope for that
… the question is if there is anything which would impact
… if you need any additional scope which requires significant change, you should give proposal
Lagally: we can talk about which content from Architecture to be moved
McCool: so are you open to the possible change of Architecture from normative to informative?
Lagally: I'm open to any direction
McCool: the fact is that many assertions from the Architecture are at risk
Kaz: again, we should start with the document analysis on which sections/contents to be normative within which spec (and potentially moved to another spec), not only for the Architecture but for all the WoT specs
... I think that would be quicker than looking at assertions.
… note that we're already planning to have a Dev Meeting during the week of March 27, and collaboration with developers is important
Ege: would like to have dedicated discussion about supporting cloud scenario
McCool: new mission statement required or not
… but would like to focus on the Charter doc itself
… we could do the necessary analysis as part of the Charter discussion though it would be a big bucket
… still would like to have a central place about what WoT is like
… and Architecture should be a good place for that purpose
… think we need to sacrifice the Discovery call on Monday for further discussion on the Charter
… maybe would be useful to generate a sheet on the assertions from specs
Lagally: want to ask people about the WoT Architecture spec
… e.g., if we really have serious problems with implementing the WoT Architecture spec
Kaz: As I suggested one year ago during the Editors calls, my suggestion is checking the sections (title and content) from all the WoT specs. For example, if there are similar or identical titles among mulitple specs, that implies possible overlap and relationship.
McCool: should be incrementally?
… like the idea of section review
… note we need to skip "Overview", etc. :)
Kaz: sure :)
Next steps
McCool: let's use all of the Discovery for Charter
… then half of the main call for Charter
… then all of the Architecture for Charter
… to see existing normative content
… also see PRs for the draft Charter
… we can add Lagally's points to the draft Charter
Ege: Lagally asked us an important question
… but could you please repeat that?
Lagally: what is the difficulty with implementing the Architecture spec?
McCool: Architecture specifically?
… or should be WoT in general
Lagally: yeah
McCool: can generate an Excel sheet of normative assertions for further discussion
[adjourned]