- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 14:08:47 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2018/08/01-wot-pf-minutes.html
also as text below.
Please respond to the Doodle poll for the online PlugFest at:
https://doodle.com/poll/a33qfw5te9myer23
as well.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT PlugFest
01 Aug 2018
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/PlugFest_WebConf#Agenda_01.08.2018
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan,
Kunihiko_Toumura, Toru_Kawaguchi, Tomoaki_Mizushima,
Ryuichi_Matsukrua, Michael_Koster, Matthias_Kovatsch
Regrets
Chair
McCool, Kaz
Scribe
kaz
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Agenda
2. [5]Testing updates
3. [6]PlugFest reports
4. [7]Panasonic report
5. [8]Hitachi report
6. [9]Goals for next plugfest
* [10]Summary of Action Items
* [11]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribenick: kaz
Agenda
McCool: basically PlugFest but want to use 5mins for testing
update
Testing updates
<McCool>
[12]https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/testing/plan.md
[12] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/testing/plan.md
McCool: testing updates
... testing plan document updated
... there are "ToDo"s
... thingweb playground is now scriptable
... there is still some issue to make it work correctly
... got this tool for test specifications
... extract normative assertions
... (shows normative assertions summary)
... have another PR to include all the tables
... need to work on assertions for that
Ege: testing topic is done?
... wanted to mention again that playground is scriptable
McCool: we can review the tools next time
PlugFest reports
McCool: several people updated their reports
... who would start?
Kaz: maybe starting with Matsukura-san?
<ryuichi>
[13]https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-bundan
g/result.md
[13] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-bundang/result.md
Matsukura: have made a template for the whole results
... want to give some explanation
... based on preparation.md format
... this report starts with section 3
... section 2 is servients list
... a table representing all the registered servients
... so would like to start with section 3 (as the actual
reports)
... 3.1 Testing individually
... 3.2 Testing in Client Role
... 3.3 Testing in Server Role
... we started with simple description
... for the next PlugFest
Matthias: clarification question about OK/NG/NA
... did you define them?
Matsukura: OK is succeed
... NG is failed
... NA is couldn't checked this time
Matthias: ETSI PlugTest has 4 categories
... OK, NO, NA, Out of Time (OT)
Matsukura: OK
... can use that definition
Matthias: and you can add a legend at the top
Matsukura: ok
... (goes through the results)
... 3.1.1 validate simplified TDs
... Fujitsu, Hitachi, Panasonic: all OK
... Hitachi and Panasonic have some comments
... wanted to include Intel, etc., as well but couldn't
Kaz: do you want to the others, i.e., Intel, Oracle, Siemens,
to put their information into this template?
Matsukura: yes
Matthias: just to make sure
... using this template for each company
... not directly into this file
Matsukura: right
Sebastian: playground is updated and the previous TDs are not
valid
Matthias: maybe need to validate again
... in the future, playground should be configured for a
specific version
Kaz: like HTML validator's having version switch :)
Matthias: yeah...
... but old versions are just drafts
Kaz: ok
Matthias: let's discuss this with Ege
Kaz: Matsukura-san, are you done?
Matsukura: yes
Kaz: maybe we can ask Kawaguchi-san and Toumura-san for
comments?
Toru: key points are already covered by Matsukura-san
... can provide some more detail
Panasonic report
<kawaguch>
[14]https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-bundan
g/result-panasonic.md
[14] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-bundang/result-panasonic.md
Toru: this is Panasonic results
... copied the content from the preparation-panasonic.md
... and then added the actual results
... the structure is similar to Matsukura-san's report
... (the report includes some diagrams/pictures)
... regarding individual testing
... not significant to mention
... registration with Thing Directory
... some issue is identified
... Interaction with things on Remote Proxy was NOT successful
due to some internal issue of the proxy.
... and then
... 3.2 Testing in Client Role
... testing with Oracle
... some difference on how to interpret
... Oracle's Fest Simulator with following local modification.
... Changed "type" from "boolean" to "object" with
"properties": {"PumpStatus" : { "type": "boolean" }}, to align
with actual endpoint implementation.
... and testing with Intel
... ntel's Button, Light, Motion and RGB- Light.
... Issue: Only first binding could be chosen from Multiple
HTTP bindings written in Intel's TD, since there seems to be no
way to distinguish and specify particular binding through
Scripting API (?)
... due to multiple security configurations
... not sure how to specify particular setting
... with multiple security configurations
McCool: iteration?
Toru: that's my understanding
McCool: would file an issue?
Toru: not yet
Matthias: if there are multiple bindings
... but if the first one works well
... why do you need to think about the second one?
... that's more about different binding?
... with scripting api, you don't have to care about that
... not a requirement for choosing which
... the use case with two bindings
... if there are 2 different bindings, you can test one with
one servient
... and test another with another servient
McCool: big difference with latency
... possibly with different network setting
... this is maybe implementation detail, though
Kaz: Kawaguchi-san, do you want to describe this problem a bit
more in detail?
Toru: should be clearly written within the Scripting API draft
Lagally: wondering about historical mark
... saying, e.g., "was part of (2)"
... maybe we can simply remove it?
Matthias: introduced that notation to see the historical
changes
Lagally: are we suppose to compile one specific document for
the results?
... what would be the best way?
... do people need to ready 10 different reports?
Matthias: ideally, you can describe the details within your
report (result-oracle.md)
... and give feedback to the main document (result.md)
Lagally: make sense
Kaz: and Matsukura-san and Koster are encouraged to keep the
main document updated?
Matsukura: yeah
... agree with Matthias
... summary document should be simple and easy to understand
[15]summary report
[15] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-bundang/result.md
Lagally: ok
... and agree
<mjkoster> i agree also
Kaz: Kawaguchi-san, are you done?
Toru: yeah
Hitachi report
<ktoumura>
[16]https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-bundan
g/result-hitachi.md
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-bundang/result-hitachi.md
Toumura: this is Hitachi's results
... only implemented the client side
... many checking points are not applicable
... but simplified TD was implemented
... same as Kawaguchi-san
... issue on how to handle multiple form entries
... not using scripting api but it's nice to have some
guideline to select multiple forms
... and here 2nd problem
... implemented authentication methods
... basic, digest, bearer
... We need security metadata to designate HTTP header name for
API key
... Panasonic's simulator uses "X-PWOT-TOKEN" header.
... for example, OpenAPI 3.0 uses following security metadata
(see
[17]https://swagger.io/docs/specification/authentication/api-ke
ys/)
... swagger has some feature for ApiKeyAuth
[17] https://swagger.io/docs/specification/authentication/api-keys/
McCool: adding names to indicate it?
Toumura: yes
... on the other hand, server role was not implemented
... appendix includes the implementation detail
... please let me know if you have comments/questions
McCool: any comments/questions?
(none)
Goals for next plugfest
McCool: captured result template, Panasonic, and Hitachi
... we need to seriously plan the PlugFest and the online
PlugFest
... we can go into the detail today
<mkovatsc> [18]Doodle
[18] https://doodle.com/poll/a33qfw5te9myer23
Matthias: Doodle poll for online plugfest
... Friday won't work for me for the 2nd option
McCool: when to make the decision?
Matthias: 2 weeks?
... to get responses from our usual suspects :)
McCool: it's more than just putting things online
... should setup servers for security as well
... need VPN setting
... instructions on how to get connected
... we can create some possible sub nets as well
... like simulated local network
... is it possible to have WebEx for the whole week?
Kaz: yes
McCool: should we put information on the wiki?
[19]PlugFest wiki
[19] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/PlugFest_WebConf
Matthias: we should have a sub directory on GitHub
Koster: yes
McCool: who should take the lead?
Matthias: can provide some MD file
McCool: ok
... Matthias to provide MD files under the new subdirectory
... the final topic is yet another doodle for the
plugfest/testing calls
... combined or separate
Matthias: why do we need to separate the call?
McCool: can continue the joint call
... for now, let's keep it combined
... e.g., for the next week
... let's not do a separate meeting for now
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
1.152 ([21]CVS log)
$Date: 2018/08/01 14:12:04 $
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 3 August 2018 05:09:58 UTC