W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Security

15 January 2024

Attendees

Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Mahda_Noura, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima, WoT Security
Regrets
-
Chair
McCool
Scribe
kaz, mahda-noura

Meeting minutes

minutes

<kaz> Dec-11

<kaz> approved

Cancelling calls and need for a new TF lead

McCool: hoping to find TF lead

McCool: the table we were completing is a use case activity
… we could pause this meeting in the meantime while we finish the use case
… we can select a date for out next meeting focusing on security
… is there any objection to cancelling 4 security calls?

(none)

McCool: our next security call (Feb 19) can focus on work item linking

Use Cases and Requirements

McCool: in our call last time, we had some concerns that this template is not the exact template, and there are 70+ use cases and we won't get to work on all in one meeting
… the idea was to split the task

<McCool_> do have issue w3c/wot-usecases#243

McCool: going through this table is not the right thing to do technically

Mahda: I agree that we should look at this table in the use case call

McCool: clean up the issue tracker

Issues

Discovery

McCool: nothing new in that since a while

Scripting API

<kaz> wot-scripting-api Issues with "Security" label

WoT Security Issue Tracker

McCool: Issue 209: w3c/wot-security#209
… This issue is a year old now, we have a number of issues, 3 of them are addressed but the rest not. I think this issue has been a bit confused with a bunch of different things in it

McCool: I think we should split it into smaller issues
… we capture this table somewhere else

Kaz: are all the discussions and the content from issue number 209 all included in the new issue?

McCool: no, just one of the comment

Kaz: how to deal with it?

McCool: we close the issue, but factor out into other small issuers since a number of them have already been taken care of

Kaz: maybe we can copy the discussion points from Jan 30 over

<kaz> discussion in Security TF call Jan 30

McCool: My concern is that it's difficult to keep track of what has been dealt with and what not

Kaz: for that purpose, we can copy over the discussion points

McCool: my concern is that, we got a long list of things to be fixes and not all have been fixed, but we just have lost track of what has been done

Kaz: maybe we can simply trash everything, but maybe there several important comments

McCool: I think the ones we already have issues for, we don't necessarily need to keep

McCool: some of the points that have already been addressed are commented under the issue

McCool: there is a bunch of stuff in this issue related to signing, key distribution and so on, we could put all of them in one issue
… some leftover issues from issue number 209 are added into w3c/wot-security#234
… issue 209 w3c/wot-security#209 is closed
… PR w3c/wot-security#233 is merged

Issue 206

<kaz> Issue 206 - Add and Update Cloud References

McCool: I am wondering, Mahda, we had this cloud stuff issue

Mahda: I worked on this somewhile ago, but the problem is that there are no proper references that can be used as good sources

McCool: Issue IoT-Cloud Integration assigned to Mahda, not higher priority

Issue 231

Issue 231 - Wot-sec ontology

Mahda: most of the WoT ontologies have similar problems

McCool: this affects various downstream tasks
… knowledge graphs and HTML rendering, etc.
… other things like rdfs:domain a also missing
… also should make sure there is a comment for every definition so that the documentation is asonable
… in some cases, ay have to define some other classes
… but most are easy
… if we only add data object properties to existing classes, wil be backward compatible
… but other changes may not be

Issue 220

Issue 220 - [Discuss] Consider moving Terminology to the beginning

McCool: let me mark this with "[Discuss]"

Issue 202

Issue 202 - Reference terminology section of the architecture spec

McCool: that issue is old and can be closed
… based on the latest Editor's draft

Editor's draft

closed

AOB

McCool: let's focus on use cases for a while

Kaz: meanwhile we need to find a new TF lead and think about how to organize the calls

McCool: yeah

Mahda: will you attend the security TF if you are not the TF lead

McCool: I have to decide which call has a higher priority

Mahda: Would it make sense to consolidate the security into other TF's?

McCool: We could consolidate with other task forces like Architecture

<kaz> (need further discussion anyway)

<kaz> [adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).