Meeting minutes
Agenda
bf: (goes through the agenda)
kaz: we as the Profile TF should think about the publication schedule as well
bf: don't think we can publish the REC during this Charter period, but we should think about our publication schedule in general
Minutes
approved
PRs
PR 419
PR 419 - Explicity state contentType of application/json in Forms - closes #141
bf: related to issue 141
Issue 141 - how to handle multiple forms
diff from PR 419 - 6.2.1.1 readproperty
bf: not big changes but several clarifications
… (goes through the changes starting with Section 6.2.1.1)
… (then 7.2.1.2)
… got comments from Ege and Daniel
dp: got your response
… this PR makes the document clearer
… various algorithms are handled by the Scripting API Note also
… wondering about which document to have what description
bf: different implementations may have different approaches
de: we struggled JSON
… if it's specified as application/json
… what would happen with possible wrapper
… it would be treated as text possibly
… indicates some additional breaklines...
bf: really good point
… what if you had a line break with empty lines
de: where is the project?
<benfrancis> https://
bf: please give your input as a GitHub Issue on the above repo
de: ok
kaz: ok with this PR itself, but as Daniel also mentioned, we need to think about refactoring later
<benfrancis> benfrancis
(merged)
PR 421
PR 421 - Switch reference from wot-security-best-practices to wot-security - closes #269
related Issue 269 - Remove reference to security best practices document
bf: Ege had a comment
kaz: it depends on which content to be referred to
… Security Best Practices or Security Note
bf: (shows the text within the WoT Profile)
kaz: if that is just general reference for Security and Privacy, a reference to the public Note would make sense
bf: what about the HTML notation?
… should use the ReSpec notation instead of the direct link using HTML?
dp: right
kaz: yes
bf: (done)
… can we merge this now?
kaz: yes
merged
Triage 1.0 issues proposed for closing
Issue 299
Issue 299 - Contradiction with the Arch spec on protocol bindings
bf: any thoughts?
kaz: maybe we could add an Editor's Note for Profile 1.0 about our concern
dp: also we should check with Ege
(Ege has just joined)
bf: (describes the points to Ege)
… shall we defer this issue to Profile 2.0?
ek: that's fine
bf: don't want to close this but defer to 2.0
… (removes "Profile-1.0" label and adds "defer to 2.0" label
Issue 310
Issue 310 - Requirements due diligence
bf: (goes through the issue)
… would suggest we close this
ek: that's fine
… maybe we could collect requirements for 2.0
bf: right
closed
Issue 312
Issue 312 - Define Plugfest Test Scenarios
dp: defining test scenario itself is important but for 2.0
bf: right
… (changes the label to "Profile-2.0")
Issue 323
Issue 323 - Revisit section 6 title and structure
bf: (goes through the issue)
… let me show you the document
it's section "5. Common Constraints"
dp: the title itself is fine
… but what is confusing to me is the paragraph after that
bf: which says "The following sections are applicable for all of the HTTP profiles defined by this document." ?
<EgeKorkan> +1 to what daniel said
dp: right
bf: would you create another issue about that?
dp: will do
bf: now would like to close this issue itself
closed
Issue 358
kaz: I'm OK with closing this issue
… when we publish WoT Profile 2.0 as CR, etc., we can create a similar issue again :)
bf: ok
closed
Issue 384
Issue 384 - Read-only events should require authentication
bf: related to the PING review
ek: this is part of the process for REC-Track
kaz: right. my suggestion is keeping this open as an issue for 2.0, and talk about this with the new Privacy group when we publish the WoT Profile 2.0
Issue 401
Issue 401 - Document a timeline for the WG
bf: this is still essential
kaz: agree
… so would suggest we keep this open
… we should update our publication schedule anyway
Triage 1.0 issues proposed to defer to 2.0
Issue 306
Issue 306 - Additional implementers feedback of profile assertions
bf: useful but not for Profile 1.0 Note
kaz: +1
bf: (changes the label to "Profile-2.0")
Issue 359
Issue 359 - Security - open issues
bf: meta issue around security
dp: technicaly, that's right but the first two bullet points don't have links for actual issues yet
bf: ah, correct
… let's defer this to 2.0 for the moment
Issue 394
Issue 394 - Some assertions need splitting up into multiple assertions
bf: this is important for REC-Track but not for Notess
(no objections)
bf: (changes to "Profile-2.0")
Assign issues needing a PR
bf: would be helpful if people could go through the issues above
… and we could get volunteers for PRs
… For example, Webhook Profile is kind of big
… so if nobody is interested, I can work on that for a stub
AOB
bf: aob for today?
ek: Luca had an implementation of Webhook, I think
bf: will check with Luca
kaz: we're out of time, so let's continue the discussion next time and/or by GitHub and email
bf: ok
… anyway, if you're interested in any of the issues, please let us know
[adjourned]