W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 1

19 February 2025

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege, Ege_Korkan, Jan_Romann, Kaz_Ashimura, Koster, Luca_Barbato, Mahda_Noura, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Ege, Koster
Scribe
cris7, EgeKorkan, cris

Meeting minutes

Guests

Ege: as a guest today we have Luca Barbato
… he is in the process to became an Invited Expert

Agenda

<kaz> Agenda for today

Ege: we will discuss two main topics ids in TD and Registry for protocol bindings

Minutes

<kaz> Feb-12

Ege: do we have any remarks?
… anything to change?
… minutes approved

ID optionality

<kaz> Issue 2054 - Reconsider id being optional

Ege: the whole point is to make id mandatory again
… there has been multiple opinions
… coming from implementers
… in the case of node-wot a random one is generated
… other people used similar strategies (filtering out TDs without IDs )
… in the past this topic was controversial as we had to do two CR
… implementers gave positive feedbacks for having a mandatory ID
… we can make it mandatory but "not static"
… main reason why we make it optional was that the ID could be use to track people associated with devices.

Kaz: good summarization, we should think about different levels of ids for IoT systems
… potentially we might use encription in some use cases.

Cristiano: thanks for the summary. I am ok to make it mandatory. Not making it permanent needs guidance for the implementers

Cristiano: should it change every hour or so?

Ege: I think it should change per network or installation

Luca: I agree with the summary
… we should start to see if have consensus to build our own namespace
… right now if we want to use that we have to pick one of the specific namespaces that are avaible
… we don't have anything that is actually really fitting
… it would be nice to have a short namespace right after urn:, example urn:wot

Daniel: we should reach out to the security and privacy group avoiding to change back

Ege: the idea is to have WG consensus first
… then ask them for feedback
… if we get a greenlight we proceed with a PR

<luca_barbato> https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml

Kaz: recently we got new Team Contacts for the Privacy WG and the Security IG, so we can start to talk with them too. In addition, technically, there is a possibility to use DID as a potential ID for Thing Descriptions

Ege: should we register a schema in IANA?

Luca: yes

Ege: for DID we should register a DID method
… for a IANA we have first to create a section in the specification and then we should be ready to register it.

Cristiano: I like the idea of registering DID method or URN namespace
… what is the advantage of registering the namespace at IANA or DID method?
… so creating something ourselves

Luca: now id is any kind of URI
… having a constant namespace would make the implementers life easier
… and also easy to introduce for us
… we have options to format our own urn schema
… it is basically suggest to TD designers to use a fixed format

Kaz: Technically, we as WoT WG can define this kind of notation and registering it to IANA but I'm a bit skeptical because it would result as something like DID.

Ege: I see what you mean

<kaz> DID Core spec

Daniel: I second what has been said, we can provide guidance about one can or should use. however I'm strongly against to mandate one single format.
… I would not force any particular format, but we can register our own.

Cristiano: if we force the use of urn or did, we lose the use case of using the url where the TD is fetched in the first place
… so enforcing a format will block doing that
… maybe he is already using the id as a URL so it can break implementation

Luca: we are not proposing to change what is the ID, we are just saying that is mandatory.
… I'm still okey to leave the id string to be any kind of string
… I'm still okey to leave the id string to be any kind of URI
… I would just add some additional guidance (which is needed from the implementation pov)

Kaz: Luca is correct, the original concern of the privacy group was to use Global unique ids
… so we should answer what kind of IDs to be use and how to use it

Ege: ok so we have consensus on 3 points: id is mandatory, is not globally unique or permanent, it should not be in a specific format but guidance of which format to use is needed.

Cristiano: about point 2 this means that I can't use UUIDs?

Ege: well if they are not permanent then you can

Kaz: is it a should or a must? I personally think we should say "SHOULD" here at the moment.

<luca_barbato> +1 for SHOULD

Ege: in my opinion it should be a must

<dape> +1 for SHOULD

Ege: if it is a SHOULD we can still encounter privacy issues

Luca: but there might cases where you cannot get away with immutability of the ID

Binding Registry

Ege: we have split all the controversial topics in sub issues
… the one that are ready to landed have the PR needed label
… we have two PRs ready

PR 411

<EgeKorkan> PR 411 - Handling Conflicting Submissions

Kaz: All the sub issues derived from the questions within the registry requirements doc have the "registry mechanism" label. Right?

Ege: yes.
… any other comments?
… ok PR approved and merged. The document is still in the draft status

PR 412

<kaz> PR 412 - Adding Summary Document Requirements

Ege: this is about summary document

Ege: any remarks for this PR?

Cristiano: does the reviewer have access to the real binding document not only this summary?

Ege: yes

Ege: PR accepted and merged

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 242 (Fri Dec 20 18:32:17 2024 UTC).