Meeting minutes
<Ege> https://
Minutes
Ege: looks good
… (goes through the minutes)
Jan: one IRC command remaining
Kaz: fixed
approved
Breakouts
<Ege> https://
Schemata session at 14 UTC
<Ege> https://
Registries session at 13 UTC
<Ege> https://
Kaz: if you want to invite non-Members to the sessions, please let us know
Binding
Registry
Ege: (goes through the document)
… some requirements here
… we'll have some more discussion during the breakout session next Tuesday
Kaz: thanks for your hard work
… as the next step, we should clarify what to be required for what purpose a bit more
… data format, content, procedure, who to submit what, etc.
Ege: (adds some more points)
… todo: ask existing registry managers about opinions
Kaz: the descriptions here under "Requirements" are good starting point for further discussion
… but it seems to me they're rater our expectations for a possible WoT Registry
… so I'd suggest we change the title to "Expectations"
… and clarify actual "Requirements for the possible WoT Registry" based on them
Ege: ok
… (changes the section title from "Requirements" to "Expectations")
Kaz: what do you mean by "registry lives within TD spec"?
Ege: thinking about a possible option of having a registry section within the TD spec
… because we've agreed on including the main Binding Template section into the TD spec
Kaz: we still need to consider the relationship between the Binding Template section of the TD spec and the registry
Jan: from versioning viewpoint, having a registry separately would be better to manage multiple versions of TDs
Ege: good point
Kaz: yeah, so we need to think about the how to manage the registry
… and the relationship between the Binding Templates section of TD and the Registry itself
Ege: ok
… will update the description here
Kaz: what do you mean by "association of a binding to the TD spec"?
… is that a possible registry entry?
Ege: yes
Kaz: technically, the registry is a deliverable of the WoT WG
… so the WoT WG as a whole should be the registry manager instead of the TD TF
… and we can assign somebody as the main contact person
Ege: ok
Kaz: regarding the possible future mechanism after the WoT WG Charter is expired, we should add a "TODO" question for that
Ege: ok
Kaz: regarding the next bullet point
… would be better to say "It SHOULD b possible to register, update, or remove a registry entry for associating a binding to a specific TD spec"
Ege: ok
Kaz: regarding the next bullet point
… There SHOULD be no two bindings for the same protocol
… would be better to say "There SHOULD NOT be two bindings for the same protocol"
… Koster, what do you think?
Koster: ok
Ege: (adds descriptions to "Reasons")
Koster: we may replace old one by a new one
… for example, several ecosystems have their definitions for CoAP
Ege: two points
Koster: we could say this is a binding for CoAP
… and another for OPC
… also could think about layered binding
… ecosystem binding in addition to protocol binding
… the question is which would be better to have them as two separate entries, or one based another entry?
Kaz: important question
… reminded me of the language tag from IANA
… like en_US and en_GB, we can think about CoAP_OPC as the ID but the registry entries themselves should be separate with each other for the variations
Ege: good point
Koster: yeah, like the registry for natural languages
… for example, there are OCF version of CoAP and OMA version of CoAP
Ege: ok
… there are still 3 more bullet points
… but we're out of time, so let's continue the discussion next time
Kaz: this is very important discussion
… thank you very much for your contribution
Ege: thank YOU too
… (saves the changes based on today's discussion)
[adjourned]