Meeting minutes
agenda and minutes
<kaz> agenda for today
https://
Mizushima: for today, will do logistics, updated plan, then minutes, then uc template, then input from WoT JP CG security seminar
logistics
Mizushima: have some holidays and cancellations
… march 20 and april 10 will be cancelled
… and also daylight savings time started, please check schedule
Proposed Plan
Mizushima: last week, wanted to work on templates for func req and tech req
… after looking at a concrete example
… however, we did not complete that, so this week we will continue
… but work on use case template, then do func and tech requirements on some future dates
… we also need to look at the publication schedule, and relationship with work items
minutes
<kaz> Mar-6
Mizushima: last minutes are at the above url
… (review minutes)
Mizushima: approve minutes and discussion points?
… (no objections, approved)
Use Case Template
Mizushima: need to clarify what we mean by "gaps", relationships between proposed use case and existing use cases
… as well as gaps in standards, WoT's and other SDOs
Ege: prepared PR w3c/
Kaz: Mizushima prepared an updated template, would like to show it
<Tomo> updated Use Case Template
Mizushima: first part is the same as previous calls
… but added part about gaps and relationships
McCool: I still feel gaps should go last, may need to consider e.g. security requirements
Ege: agree gaps should be at the end
… other point, this specific example of gaps is not concrete enough
… and should possibly be written by working group
… not clear what needs to be done by TF
Kaz: should first acknowledge updates based on last week
McCool: to summarize the changes, relationships were moved out of gaps, and a better definition of gaps
… I am fine with those changes
Kaz: we also should talk about the security considerations etc.
McCool: I was going to bring that up, but wanted to address moving gaps to the end first, as it is a higher priority
Kaz: let's take three step approach
… Mizushima's changes based on the previous discussion themselves, moving gaps, updating the security section
McCool: concur with first two, let's do that
… then discuss the last point when we get there
Ege: agree
Kaz: ok, Mizushima, since people agree, let's edit the markdown to move the gaps section
Mizushima: (moves gaps section)
McCool: for wide review sections, first, it would be good to link to the existing questionnaires for these sections
… even though they are not especially relevant
… second, for security and privacy, we have already defined a set of broad categories
… and it would be good for use cases to identify which categories they belong to
… (may be more than one)
<kaz> design-reviews issue (which includes the following 3 links)
<kaz> security and privacy review
<kaz> accessibility review
<kaz> internationalization review
McCool: these questions are not perfect, but are a starting point
… and then I would like to see the categories
… which is basically a set of five yes/no questions
Kaz: two steps then - let's add links to our versions of the questionnaires, then think about security categories based on the feedback from the Security TF (can make PR)
Ege: agree
Mizushima: agree
Mizushima: use case template should not be complicated however
McCool: true, and questionnaires we link to are a bit off-target
… but the five questions are proposing are very simple and valuable
Kaz: rather, it should be as simple as possible, and also it should include enough information for requirement extraction
Ege: regarding simplicity, if it is simple but not useful, then we are wasting our time
… we need actionable input
… would rather balance it more towards getting more information from use cases
Kaz: that's why we're holding discussion to see the well-balance :)
McCool: ok, let's work on a PR for these proposed changes in the Security TF
… then discuss next week
<kaz> [adjourned]