Meeting minutes
minutes review
<kaz> Mar-29
McCool: there is a confusing sentence, did the meeting happen or it did not?
Ege: I don't know
… not in the 28th for sure
McCool: we are sharing the slide links everywhere
… everybody can comment
… there might be problems
… they can't change the content
… should we try to protect these?
Ege: we can always close inappropriate comments
McCool: yes we can even disable the comment feature, but the slide should be still accessible
… at this point all the links are pubblic
… other than the first issue minutes looks ok
<kaz> (Kaz joins)
Kaz: as I reported there was a TD dev meeting
McCool: did it happen on march 28th?
Kaz: not sure the date I have to check
… confirmed 28th of March
dev meeting plan
McCool: we have two slide decks, architecture is good
<kaz> i/we have to/subtopic: Architecture/
McCool: there is an issue in the assertion comunication-platform
… not sure it even make sense
… also pre-shared keys should be changed to certificates
<kaz> Slides info (For Members)
<kaz> Slides info (For IEs)
discovery
McCool: I noticed that we are using an outdated URI for link-description-type
… for the test we will consider correct both the old and the new one
McCool: there is also a loop hole in tdd-http-alternate-language
… people can satisfy the assertion even if they to do provide a TD with the right language
… it needs to be updated
… any other logistical things that we need to do ?
Ege: what about the video?
McCool: we didn't decide yet
… the concern is record the meeting
McCool: we are settling for record a video blog in a separate setting
Ege: then where to be shared ?
McCool: we need also to review it
… so where you host it meanwhile ?
Ege: we can use youtube
McCool: or google drive
Ege: regarding the timing, it might be too tight
McCool: I know..
… we can mail the presentation too
… without making the video
McCool: what value the voice over adds?
… maybe not that much
Kaz: Thinking about the video recording too much would not make sense. We should rather focus on inviting people to the event
… also we need to identify which features are important and prioritized accordingly.
McCool: we will do this for discovery
… my guess is that policy assertions might be sacrificed
… other things might happen
… language is something that we need to provide to meet internationalization goals
McCool: I'll try to resolve some of the missing assertions
… the list might get shorter
Ege: a lot of these are best practices, I see this in all around our other spec documents.
… I think we are shouting ourselves in the foot
… we should consider where to move this best practices
McCool: discovery is a web server
… and it needs to be implemented in a secure fashion
… we should discourage things that have security holes
… lot of these assertions are need to create a secure service
Ege: instructing people is good
… but it is not a feature
McCool: in architecture might be true
… but in discovery a lot of them are really feature
… there are some policies
McCool: the point is that we have these assertions
… we have to figure it out how to test them
McCool: discoverer behavior is important
Kaz: I agree with Ege, and that's why I also mentioned similar comments during the Architecture call yesterday.
… However, we need to discuss this important question another time for the next Charter period.
… and now should focus on discussion for the current Charter period discussion and closing the work for the current charter
… Maybe we might not be going to get implementations for some of the assertions
… therefore we should concentrate on important features
luca: if an assertion is important for interoperability it should stay, but if the assertion is about policies or nice to have features should be moved to another section
… also is not good to have too many fuzzy assertions, because people might ignore them all together
McCool: another idea is to prioritize assertions that already have 1 implementation
Testfest
McCool: it is immediately after hannover fair
McCool: should we send a email to the group and confirm the dates
… we will discuss it in the main call
McCool: anything else?
Kaz: the test task force should be clear about what to be prepared for this event
McCool: yes, we need to clean up readmes
PR
McCool: we have a new PR
McCool: merging 539
<McCool> PR 539 - Update saywot manual csv
<Mizushima> +1 kaz
[adjourned]