Meeting minutes
agenda review
<kaz> agenda for today
Ege: mainly want to discuss registry requirements
minutes review
Ege: any corrections or additions?
<kaz> Feb-15
redirection setting
Issue 1807 - TM namespace not active yet
wot-resources PR 20 - TD 1.1 Resource Finalization
Ege: Kaz has completed the redirections for resources, thank you
binding templates
CoAP
<kaz> wot-binding-templates PR 352 - Min Polling Interval in CoAP
Ege: there is a discussion about CoAP we should summarize
Ege: there is a minimum polling interval for a server
Ege: Klaus Hartke is proposing a minimum polling interval as an integer
… any comments?
Jan: looks good to me
Ege: other comments or concerns?
… OK, we will fixup the tooling and merge
registry
<kaz> wot Issue 1177 - Registry Requirements
Ege: today we can agree on the overall concept
… there were questions about whether we should use IANA
… what is the benefit of using IANA instead of a W3C registry?
Luca: IANA has the registry for URI schemes
… we have to go through them anyway
… we don't need a RFC for registering URI schemes
Ege: it's a common pattern to provide a RFC
… we should check the actual requirement
<JKRhb> For URI schemes, you apparently only need a " permanently available, stable, protocol specification", c.f. https://
Ege: we have to decide whether to be strict about the requirement to register URIs
… this also applies to subprotocols and media types
Kaz: I'm confused here, was thinking we were talking about binding registry
… Do we want to use IANA for registration of binding templates?
Ege: there was a question about whether we should use IANA for registration instead or in addition to W3C
Kaz: we should clarify what we want to do and what information is to be managed under the registration
… before we can dive into the question of where to host the registry
Kaz: IANA doesn't currently have a way to register WoT binding template information
Kaz: maybe there is some misunderstanding, expected to survey existing registries for design patterns
… and mechanisms. Is this your understanding also?
Ege: yes, but the issue was brought up in the meeting 3 weeks ago
… wanted to make sure we discuss it more
… not suggesting that we create a new IANA registry
Kaz: we need to discuss our own requirements more. This question doesn't make sense
Jan: wanted to point out that adding a URI registration in IANA does not require a RFC
… the spec document can be a W3C document
Cristiano: IANA also allows provisional registration
Luca: to clarify, we need a relationship with IANA for URIs and media types
… for bindings, we register protocols and payloads
… we are going through IANA anyway and could streamline the process for new payload bindings
Luca: protocol bindings need URI registration
… maybe it is easier to do it all in IANA
Ege: maybe it is better to use W3C mechanisms
Kaz: This is a good discussion but still confused. We should add one line at the top of the summary that we need to clarify what is needed for protocol binding management
… before we decide which organization to host the registry
… following the web codec use of W3C is also a possibility
… suggest a joint discussion with web codec group about their use of W3C registry
… This could be a good breakout session topic
Ege: had a chat with web codec people at TPAC
… they said we need to think carefully about the rules
… it's up to each individual spec
Kaz: let's have a follow up discussion and ask for more advice
<Ege> Requirements for potential binding registry (withing the survey page)
Ege: discussion now about requirements for the binding registry
… the use case is integration with existing protocols and communities
… it's impractical to include all of the bindings in the rec
… want to review the requirements and rules we have so far
… first point is who can write a binding. W3C membership is not required, subject expertise is more important
… any discussion on this point?
Kaz: we should improve this section about our own requirements more
Ege: add a TODO for following up with the web codec group
Ege: next point is aligning bindings with TD versions
… next point is WoT control of the registry
… we should limit the duplication of bindings
… How strict should we be about URI schemes being defined and registered?
… this needs more discussion
Cristiano: maybe the provisional registration would make the process easier
… IANA have a duplication policy to check the provisional registrations before registration of new schemes
Ege: creating a draft PR for registry requirements
use case for geolocation
Ege: there is a document for geolocation requirements
… reviewed and didn't find it to be actionable
… needs to be considered by the use case TF first
Kaz: agree
… we are working on specific examples in the UC TF, this could become another early example for what actionable information is needed
Ege: adjourned