11:55:04 RRSAgent has joined #wot-profile 11:55:08 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/09-wot-profile-irc 11:55:20 meeting: WoT Profile 11:55:25 present+ Kaz_Ashimura 11:57:19 rrsagent, make log public 11:57:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:57:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 12:00:28 luca_barbato has joined #wot-profile 12:00:57 present+ Luca_Barbato, Michael_Koster 12:06:34 -> https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/bkOqAQKb doodle 12:10:14 i/doodle/topic: Doodle/ 12:11:21 present+ Ege_Korkan 12:13:29 q+ 12:13:54 ack k 12:15:08 mjk has joined #wot-profile 12:16:12 scribenick: kaz 12:16:33 kaz: Wed right before TD slot 1 (=right after WoT main call) is the best based on the doodle results 12:16:59 ... we need to think about another slot for TD toolchain, though 12:17:01 ek: ok 12:17:30 ... need an announcement? 12:17:39 kaz: we can report that during the main call tomorrow 12:17:48 ... and the main call minutes can record the fact :) 12:18:03 topic: High Level and Profile 12:18:11 scribenick: Ege 12:18:29 ek: we have examples of it at OCF, LwM2M, KNX-IoT and Thread Border Routers 12:20:06 ek: they all specifiy payload and resource structure and security 12:20:14 ... do they specify behavior? 12:20:25 mk: they specify onboarding as well 12:21:18 ... OCF and LWM2M do writeproperty differently: put and post and some others do patch 12:21:53 ... they can also specify caching 12:22:26 ... they specify payloads as well. like an ecosystem 12:22:52 ... for something like matter you need a protocol binding and you need a profile on top of it 12:23:46 ... so adapting wot to ecosystems would go through profiles 12:24:17 ... so bindings and profiles would need to work together 12:24:37 q+ Luca 12:24:55 lb: in this case, profile and bindings would both need a registry 12:25:57 ... the way a consumer needs to behave based on a protocol or profile would be the same. The problems are shared 12:26:29 q? 12:26:30 ... profile would need to give guarantee that the Things are 100% compliant 12:26:33 q+ 12:26:35 q+ 12:26:35 ack l 12:26:49 ... so you need both 12:28:55 ek: we should not propose a coap profile in that case since that is not a known ecosystem. We cannot do compliance testing 12:29:14 lb: compliance testing is an issue with greenfield 12:30:37 ek: we do not have the manpower to provide everything needed for profiles. We don't do onboarding etc. 12:30:50 lb: some one will propose a profile sooner or later anyway 12:31:19 mk: the http profile is a krellian profile in this case. That is what he sees as something to solve his customers' problems 12:32:55 mk: calling it an http profile is weird since it adds another layer but no onboarding object structure etc. 12:33:33 ... I have issues with having a native WoT profile 12:34:05 ... not having conformance testing is a real issue though. We cannot do it in this charter and maybe never in W3C 12:35:18 ... I like the generic binding idea. A profile can be added on top 12:35:20 q+ 12:35:23 ack m 12:35:30 ack m 12:40:50 ek: a vanilla coap consumer can use a KNX IoT device by sending the correct requests. it may not understand all the payloads and may not know which property out of 300 that it should use 12:41:28 lb: what you explain is ok but we have the question about greenfield. What about people who want to use our stuff and only our stuff? 12:42:11 q+ 12:42:19 q- 12:43:10 q+ 12:44:59 ek: we should have these discussions with more people and with concrete examples 12:45:53 lb: we need to address people who want to use our stuff but we do not have enough guidance and we have too much stuff 12:45:55 ack ege 12:46:51 ek: we can put guidance in the TD spec with notes 12:46:56 lb: but people will be still lost 12:47:56 q+ 12:48:31 lb: people need stuff (e.g. SDKs) that just work easily 12:49:49 ... that way people are not lost when trying to put everything together 12:51:32 kaz: I agree with Ege that we need more people for this discussion and concrete environment and device for a specific purpose 12:51:38 ack k 12:51:39 q- 12:52:30 mk: we are talking about greenfield for device implementers. Do we want to work on 1 WoT profile to give to implementers? 12:52:39 ... I would call that a device specification 12:52:47 ... we would compete with Matter and similar 12:53:38 mk: Do we want to create an ecosystem? 12:53:50 ... that means adding onboarding and other mechanisms 12:54:26 ... so it seems we need to agree on what problem we are solving 12:55:09 lb: if we don't do this, someone else will do that 12:55:49 ... profiles make evident what the actors can expect 12:55:55 ... what is the baseline you are going to expect 12:57:07 ... the actors need to be explicit on these expectations 12:58:14 ek: so you are saying that explcit expectations in the TD would overwhelm the consumers 12:59:17 lb: so we have to defien what happens when a Consumer does not understand a part of the TD 12:59:33 ... also there can be constrained Consumers 13:00:06 q+ 13:00:41 ack k 13:01:07 s/defien/define/ 13:01:57 [adjourned] 13:02:02 rrsagent, make log public 13:02:09 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:02:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz