Meeting minutes
<Ege> luca can you take minutes?
Agenda
Ege: (goes through the agenda)
Minutes
Ege: (goes through the minutes)
approved
Binding Templates
Ege: (goes through the topics quickly)
PR 1161
wot PR 1161 - docs: IANA procedures for registries summary
Cristiano: there are different ways to manage registries
Cristiano: different policies for different registries
… e.g., IANA for protocols
… have been trying to summarize them
Ege: any review policy there?
Cristiano: expert review based on RFC8124, etc.
… some description about the role of the designated expert
Ege: (skims that section)
… (goes through "URI Schemes" section too)
Cristiano: details written on the registry itself
<cris_> https://
(guideline for media types registration)
Cristiano: basically, first com, first served
Ege: thanks a lot for looking into them
… quite relevant
Kaz: tx a lot!
… we (as the TD TF) then need to think about which way to go
… need to think about the basic mechanism and policy
… then should propose a method to the whole group
Ege: right
dp: looking into IANA, are we still need to get idea from their side?
Ege: the first step is basic survey about existing examples
… we could follow some of the process from the example registries
… but need to think about how to apply them to our need
… we ourselves won't write write RFCs for our own registry
Cristiano: similar question
… wanted to know what the group think
Ege: record comments on the GH issue
Kaz: I think we're trying a 3-step approach
… 1. survey the existing examples for registry management
… 2. clarify our requirements for Binding Template registry
… 3. think about which policies/processes to be applied to our own registry
… we've done the first step, and need to work on 2 and 3
Ege: agree
Luca: we have several contacts from IANA
… if we invent new Protocol Bindings, should work with them
… we have to interact with them
… we'll have to do some work for that purpose
Ege: not sure about that kind of expected collaboration yet
… but given W3C now has the registry track, there should be some mechanism for the expected collaboration
Luca: in many cases, can imagine that W3C registries are different from the existing IANA registry
… so we should consider what we need
… how to make it work, etc.
… if we go through IANA, a chunk of problems registered with them already
… who to contact IETF/IANA to discuss what we want?
Kaz: let's talk with PLH about how to proceed after clarifying our own requirements a bit clearer
… (see also the guide above)
Ege: ok
Use Case discussion
Ege: have created labels on the wot-thing-description repo and also the t-binding-templates repo
… using the same color
<Ege> TD.Next Feature Aiming Work Items
Ege: also working on badges
wot PR 1175 - Badges for work items to match GitHub labels
Kaz: basically agree
… but this improvement should be applied to the whole group
… also currently, should name the proposal (PR 1175) "TD/Binding Planning"
… and after clarifying it's useful, we can propose to the whole group to use this
Ege: agree
PR 1175 merged
Ege: any more questions about the new label management method?
<Ege> https://
Kaz: the procedure about how to manage the labels is described within the proposed tf-issue-process.md. right?
Ege: yes
Kaz: let's record the fact here in the minutes then :)
… and also let people know about that
Expectations of stakeholders
Ege: discussion ongoing within the Use Cases TF
… should think about stakeholders opinions including the TD TF
Ege: (describes his opinions as one of the TD TF participants, and also as one of the users of Thing Description)
Kaz: tx
… given we're already out of time, let's start with this topic next time
<Mizushima> +1 for kaz
Cristiano: should start with take one issue and think about implementations too
Kaz: in that case, should think about real implementations in addition to prototype implementations
(deeper discussion to be done next time)
[adjourned]