12:02:51 RRSAgent has joined #wot 12:02:55 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/06-wot-irc 12:02:56 meeting: WoT-WG/IG 12:03:19 EgeKorkan has joined #wot 12:03:24 Mizushima has joined #wot 12:03:49 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Josh_Thomas, Ege_Korkan, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:03:58 rrsagent, make log public 12:04:03 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:04:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/06-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:04:49 chair: Sebastian 12:04:54 present+ Ben_Francis 12:06:24 scribenick: kaz 12:06:32 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#6_August_2025 12:06:51 dezell has joined #wot 12:07:01 present+ David_Ezell 12:07:02 topic: Guests 12:07:09 sk: none 12:07:12 topic: Minutes 12:07:29 -> https://www.w3.org/2025/07/30-wot-minutes.html July-30 12:08:29 sk: (goes through the minutes) 12:08:43 ... (mentions the schedule for the Plugfest call) 12:09:07 q+ 12:10:08 kaz: can create a Doodle poll to identify a new slot for the Plugfest 12:10:26 ... can include the current Plugfest slot as well 12:10:28 q- 12:12:05 sk: should spell out UCR 12:12:18 kaz: done (as Use Cases and Requirements) 12:12:45 (approved) 12:12:56 dape has joined #wot 12:13:01 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:13:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/06-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:13:10 q? 12:13:10 q+ 12:13:14 topic: Quick Items 12:13:32 subtopic: Plugfest call 12:13:47 sk: we won't have any WoT calls next week 12:14:28 ... and we'd like to restart the Plugfest call in 2 weeks 12:14:50 q+ 12:14:58 ack b 12:15:24 subtopic: Other topic? 12:15:28 bf: would talk about Profile publication 12:15:34 sk: can add that to the agenda 12:15:42 q? 12:15:54 subtopic: Architecture 12:15:58 q+ 12:16:09 ek: there is some normative portion within the WoT Architecture 12:16:23 ... and we should move that to the TD spec 12:16:37 q? 12:16:38 q- later 12:16:46 mm: minor thing 12:17:00 ... there is a link to the Architecture spec 12:17:18 ... when to publish the updated drafts for TD and Architecture? 12:17:42 ... could remove the link from the Use Cases doc to the Architecture doc, though 12:17:50 q- 12:17:52 q+ 12:17:54 ack m 12:18:43 q+ 12:18:53 ack k 12:19:13 kaz: Ege's proposal is rather a reminder to us all 12:19:26 ... if we as the WoT WG are OK, we can go for that direction 12:19:45 ... and then the TD TF, the UC TF, etc., should go for that direction 12:19:52 ack m 12:20:03 sk: so we should make a resolution 12:20:12 ... would it make sense? 12:20:36 q+ 12:21:37 ack k 12:21:43 kaz: think there are 3 steps here 12:21:55 ... 1. we can make a resolution about the basic direction 12:22:18 ... 2. Ege and others can clarify which portion form the Architecture spec to be moved 12:22:30 ... 3. we as the whole WG can work on actual spec work 12:23:04 sk: ok 12:23:11 ... let's make a resolution 12:23:27 s/spec work/spec work for TD and so on/ 12:26:18 proposal: the group decided that in the future the normative text of the Architecture specification related to the TD features going into the TD specification. Doing so, it should be clarified which portion form the Architecture spec to be moved. Next it should be clarified the actual spec work in Architecture and in the TD. 12:26:36 s/form/from/ 12:27:18 resolution: the group decided that in the future the normative text of the Architecture specification related to the TD features going into the TD specification. Doing so, it should be clarified which portion form the Architecture spec should be moved. Next it should be clarified the actual spec work in Architecture and in the TD. 12:27:21 s/form/from/ 12:27:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:27:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/06-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:27:40 subtopic: Profile publication 12:27:55 Call for resolution: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-wg/2025Jul/0024.html 12:28:58 subtopic: Architecture - revisited 12:29:16 ek: by when and how to work on the clarification with the Architecture spec? 12:29:26 sk: would ask the TD TF to work on that 12:29:42 @@@ change the text order later 12:29:54 subtopic: Profile publication - revisited 12:30:26 Call for resolution: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-wg/2025Jul/0024.html 12:30:32 sk: (explains the situation) 12:30:42 ... we originally wanted to publish the updated draft as a WG Note 12:30:52 ... but the latest W3C Process doesn't allow us to do that 12:31:07 bf: need to publish it as "Discontinued Draft" 12:31:10 q+ 12:31:12 q+ 12:31:46 kaz: right 12:31:49 q- 12:32:50 bf: have you confirmed that point with PLH? 12:33:15 kaz: yes, and we can't change the Track from REC Track to Note 12:34:01 bf: don't think Discontinued Draft would really fit with our case this time 12:34:36 ... the original resolution was publishing the draft as a Note or a CR 12:34:40 q+ 12:34:54 +1 to ben. Just a small point: Scripting API was never on the REC track 12:35:00 q+ 12:35:14 ... my preference is rather staying on the REC track 12:36:39 ack b 12:36:52 kaz: note that we can still publish the updated draft as a WD 12:37:11 mm: it's still work in progress 12:37:13 ack k 12:37:13 q+ 12:37:14 ack m 12:37:21 q+ 12:37:32 ... would agree with Ben we need to revisit the original resolution as wel 12:37:36 s/wel/well/ 12:38:27 bf: if the Profile goes to 2.0, Profile 1.0 should be a Note 12:38:28 q+ 12:38:48 ... the current Profile 1.0 is relatively a start of Profile 2.0 12:38:52 ack b 12:39:05 dp: would like to confirm the name 12:39:16 ... don't think "Discontinued Draft" is a good name 12:39:44 ... maybe we should talk with PLH again 12:39:58 ... we should be able to use the Note Track 12:40:04 ack d 12:40:17 ... that's what I want to do personally 12:41:14 q+ 12:41:27 kaz: personally would agree with you too 12:41:47 q+ 12:41:55 ... but given the current/latest Process doesn't allow us to change the Track, we need to think about the other options 12:41:57 ack k 12:42:11 sk: would it make sense to invite PLH to talk about that? 12:42:40 bf: what would happen if we make WoT Profile 1.0 a Discontinued Draft? 12:42:48 ... can we work on WoT Profile 2.0? 12:42:57 ack b 12:44:08 kaz: we can safely work on 2.0 12:44:24 ... also we can restart 1.0 if we want 12:44:26 ack b 12:44:44 https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#abandon-draft 12:44:51 ek: the Process says "we SHOULD publish it as Discontinued Draft", not "MUST" 12:45:02 ack e 12:45:04 q+ 12:46:25 [[ 12:46:25 Any Recommendation-track technical report no longer intended to advance or to be maintained, and that is not being rescinded, should be published as a Discontinued Draft, with no substantive change compared to the previous publication. 12:46:27 ]] 12:46:34 q+ 12:47:30 kaz: that's true before the closure of the WG 12:47:53 ... but the point here is that we can't change the document Track from REC Track to Note Track 12:47:55 q- 12:48:09 ... but we can still publish the updated draft as WD or CR 12:48:17 ... so revisiting the resolution would make sense 12:48:49 q+ 12:49:14 bf: we should go back to the W3C Team again 12:49:31 ... note the Scripting API once went back to Note 12:49:34 ack b 12:49:35 q+ 12:50:28 de: wanted to say the WoT Profile is helpful for interoperability 12:50:45 ... publishing the WoT Profile 1.0 as Discontinued Draft would be not good 12:50:54 ack d 12:52:44 q+ 12:54:08 q+ 12:54:21 q- 12:55:10 kaz: according to the latest W3C Process, publishing the updated draft as WD @@@ 12:55:31 ack m 12:55:51 > A technical report should not switch away from the Recommendation Track without due consideration of the Patent Policy implications and approval of W3C’s legal counsel if the Working Group envisions a likelihood of returning to it later. 12:57:03 ... but if we as the whole WG don't want use "Discontinued Draft", we can revisit the resolution 12:57:42 q+ 12:57:45 proposal: Group consider the Profile as Note and not as Discontinued Draft. 12:57:45 ack k 12:58:13 q+ 12:59:19 resolution: The WG would drive the Profile 1.0 as Note and not as Discontinued Draft. 12:59:52 proposal: Merge PR372 in Use Cases and Requirements to update the Security and TD User Stories.https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/372 13:00:10 i|proposal|topic: Use Cases PR| 13:00:25 mm: as announced last week, created a PR as above 13:00:33 ... (describes the PR) 13:01:39 ... it's related to security, so would make a resolution by the whole group 13:01:45 resolution: Merge PR372 in Use Cases and Requirements to update the Security and TD User Stories.https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/372 13:01:48 q+ 13:01:52 ack e 13:01:53 ack m 13:02:19 kaz: any impacts to the Security document? 13:02:21 mm: no 13:02:52 ... it's that we have to keep the Use Cases document updated 13:03:04 ... for now, would work on further clean up 13:03:16 ack k 13:04:25 topic: AOB? 13:04:29 sk: anything urgent for today? 13:04:39 q+ 13:05:07 ack k 13:05:38 kaz: IEs, if you're interested in the funding, please contact the Event Team based on the TPAC page's instruction 13:05:41 [adjourned] 13:05:47 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:05:49 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/06-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:55:21 TallTed has joined #wot 14:19:51 bigbluehat has joined #wot 15:06:12 s/as WD @@@/as WD might make sense for the updated draft./ 15:06:14 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:06:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/06-wot-minutes.html kaz 15:09:29 Zakim has left #wot