- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:29:17 +0900
- To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at: https://www.w3.org/2017/09/20-wot-minutes.html also as text below. Thanks for taking these notes, Dave! Kazuyuki --- [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - WoT IG/WG 20 Sep 2017 See also: [2]IRC log [2] http://www.w3.org/2017/09/20-wot-irc Attendees Present Zoltan_Kis, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Dave_Raggett, Kazuo_Kajimoto, Michael_Koster, Niklas_Widell, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Takeshi_Yamada, Taki_Kamiya, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Daniel_Peintner, Soumya_Kanti_Datta, Barry_Leiba, DarkoAnicic, Kunihiko_Toumura, Masato_Ohura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Wonsuk_Lee, Keiichi_Tokuyama, Toru_Kawaguchi Regrets Matthias, Uday Chair McCool, Kajimoto Scribe dsr Contents * [3]Topics 1. [4]Quick updates 2. [5]PlugFest planning 3. [6]WebSockets 4. [7]Task Force reports * [8]Summary of Action Items * [9]Summary of Resolutions __________________________________________________________ <McCool> waiting until 5m past; any new agenda items, let me know <scribe> scribenick: dsr Quick updates Michael reports the news that the 3 FPWDs were successfully published as planned. <kaz> [10]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-wg/2017Sep/ 0006.html [10] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-wg/2017Sep/0006.html He has been working on the security workshop plans and wants to have the security document published in good time to support the workshop <kaz> [11]Michael McCool's message on the IEEE S&P Workshop (Member-only) [11] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-ig/2017Sep/0001.html There is some 12 hours left to make changes to the workshop proposal so please send comments PlugFest planning Michael: any updates on the plugfest planning? <kaz> [12]PlugFest wiki [12] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_4-10_November_2017,_Burlingame,_CA,_USA#PlugFest_.284-5_Nov_2017.29 Matsukura-san emailed updated slides just before today’s call <McCool> see issue #346 It is titled “Issues for TPAC Plugfest”. He presents it using the webex shared screen facility <kaz> [13]Matsukura-san's slides [13] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2017Sep/att-0011/update_Issues_for_TPAC_plugfest_170920.pptx The main focus is on communication between servients <McCool> [14]https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/346 Issue for "[Plugfest] Planning for next step" [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/346 Matsukura-san talks us through each slide in turn A device can act as a servient, or it could involve a gateway to expose a thing for another servient to consume One issue is that the URL can be different on either side of a NAT firewall We need some joint discussion on discovery, exchange of thing descriptions and their management. McCool: we should support the use of ACE where practical. For events, I would like to support the subscription model, but to allow for other possibilities. I hope the approach here is descriptive and will allow for other approaches in future kaz: the question is how to map addresses across NAT, right? <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask if Matsukura-san's point is how to handle local device's address from the remote side within TD and how to transfer TD for that purpose Matsukura-san: yes kaz: you should make that clearer sebastian: you showed one servient as a gateway, what do you mean by a gateway? if you want to provide access to devices from outside of the firewall, the gateway can help is the idea that the clients can get access direct to local devices or what is your intention? if the former, a better term might be a bridge Matsukura-san: the gateway provides a means to create shadows of things <mjkoster> There is a proxy device in the gateway (aka digital twins) <kaz> dsr: came across the issue on URL with local/remote networks <kaz> ... my solution was embedding the address of the gateway into the TD <kaz> ... thousands of thermostats <kaz> ... looks very straight-forward <kaz> ... the question is what would be the best solution Dave: what’s the best means for us to share ideas, as I have been working on the same problem for gateways and cloud hubs McCool: is the issue tracker the right place for this? kaz: the gateway can manage multiple devices on the same local area network or in the local vicinity <inserted> ... Matsukura-san and Nimura-san would like to clarify the need/requirement for that kind of Management Thing as well McCool: are the servients going to come from different people? <inserted> kaz: right, so Matsukura-san would like you as well to provide one of the servients :) McCool: the OCF bridge might fit into this pattern WebSockets What is the URL for the slides? <kaz> [15]Yamada-san's slides [15] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2017Sep/att-0013/Event_Implementation_Proposal__HTTP_WebSocket__r3.pptx Yamada-san: I want to talk about a proposal for eventing we would like to have more discussion on eventing slide 1: several times of protocols for event delivery, e.g. HTTP long poilling, server-sent events, websockets The table shows some pros and cons for each protocol Slide 2 shows protocol message exchanges using HTTP + WebSocket HTTP is used to subscribe/unsubscribe and WebSockets for event delivery Multiple devices can share the same WebSocket connection, so the message includes the device URI The event message should include the timestamp as proposed by Mozilla Yamada-san presents some detailed examples questions or comments? McCool: there is more than one way to handle events, so the TD should state which applies The interaction model depends on the underlying protocol. e.g. HTTP vs CoAP vs WebSockets We should assume that there are multiple ways to support eventing, and the consumer needs to know what the producer is using sebastian: the TD needs to cover the communication metadata for that <kaz> dsr: comment first <kaz> ... in discussion with Ben <kaz> ... websocket would be a good way to go <kaz> ... using HTTPS for security and authentication <kaz> ... why did you choose websocket just for events? Dave: why did you choose to use WebSockets just for events and not for properties and actions? I have done that for my design. <Zakim> dsr, you wanted to ask why not use WebSockets for properties and actions McCool: we should discuss how to add the communications metadata for eventing sebastian: this Friday in the TD call we will discuss metadata for eventing, could Yamada-san join that call? Yamada-san: yes <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to mention VW's VIWI submission and Automotive WG's VISS kaz: I wanted to mention VW's VIWI submission and Automotive WG's VISS <kaz> [16]https://www.w3.org/TR/vehicle-information-service/ [16] https://www.w3.org/TR/vehicle-information-service/ these are similar approaches using WebSockets for messaging <kaz> [17]https://www.w3.org/Submission/2016/SUBM-viwi-protocol-20161 213/ [17] https://www.w3.org/Submission/2016/SUBM-viwi-protocol-20161213/ we should take a look at both of these approaches kajimoto-san: Mozilla are also interested in using WebSockets for messaging <inserted> kaz: as discussed during the Chairs call last week, I can send a reminder to Benjamin about possible joint work sebastian: this is not just a TD topic and is also relevant to the protocol binding discussion Task Force reports sebastian: last week we had a TD call with invited experts to talk to us about the SSN ontology <kaz> [18]TD minutes (Member-only) [18] https://www.w3.org/2017/09/15-wot-td-minutes.html we discussed TD types, we need to be careful with naming in the linked data form this Friday we will focus on eventing and the plugfest <zkis> [19]https://www.w3.org/2017/09/18-wot-minutes.html (Member-only) [19] https://www.w3.org/2017/09/18-wot-minutes.html Zoltan talks about the scripting task force call. We had the FPWD and discussed a small reorganisation of the repo and added Johannes as an editor The node-wot project is considering adding the W3C license once that happens, other people will be able to contribute to the project <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to mention there is discussion within the Chairs group and the W3C Team about the license question kaz: discussion within the Chairs group and the W3C Team about the license question re node-wot this is to be clarified Daniel: I understood from Wendy that the W3C license is equal to the MIT license, so changing should be easy kaz: not 100% equal, we need to look at the details and get back with some recommendations Daniel: I am waiting on this before restructuring the node-wot repo McCool: no binding call this week, Michael Koster has some slides to present. <kaz> [20]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2017Sep/ 0024.html Koster's message [20] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2017Sep/0024.html Can we defer this to next week’s call? Michael_Koster: I could instead present at this Friday’s TD call McCool: some pending changes on the security draft and aiming for FPWD on November 1st ... end of meeting … Summary of Action Items Summary of Resolutions [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________ Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version 1.152 ([22]CVS log) $Date: 2017/09/20 13:27:43 $ [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 13:30:28 UTC