- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:27:46 +0900
- To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/10/16-wot-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT-IG/WG
16 Oct 2019
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#16_Oct_2019
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, David_Ezell, Michael_McCool,
Daniel_Peintner, Michael_Lagally, dezell,
Tomoaki_Mizushima, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Taki_Kamiya,
Sebastian_Kaebisch, Zoltan_Kis, Ege_Korkan,
Takeshi_Suzuki
Regrets
Dave_Raggett
Chair
McCool
Scribe
kaz
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Singapore F2F cancelled
2. [5]TPAC minutes
3. [6]New calls
4. [7]IG Charter review
5. [8]Privacy
6. [9]Scripting next steps
7. [10]AOB?
* [11]Summary of Action Items
* [12]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<McCool> agenda:
[13]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#16_Oct_2019
[13] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#16_Oct_2019
<scribe> scribenick: kaz
Singapore F2F cancelled
McCool: unfortunately, there is no sponsorship for the expected
Singapore f2f...
... so had to cancel the meeting
... no f2f meeting will be there on Nov. 13-14
... but we're still having the IRTF workshop on Nov. 15 and the
IETF hacathon on Nov. 16
... if people have got reservation, very sorry for the f2f part
David: what would be 15th?
McCool: original plan was
... joint discussion during the workshop with IRTF T2TRG for
the WISHI workshop on 15th
... but the funding has been lost for the f2f part on 13-14
TPAC minutes
[14]f2f minutes
[14] https://www.w3.org/2019/09/19-20-wot-minutes.html
McCool: any comments?
... otherwise would fix them
... would assume people have already read them
Kaz: got confirmation from Chris Needham from the MEIG about
the joint call on Dec 3
McCool: (adds that point to the main call wiki)
<McCool> proposal: accept the TPAC 2019 F2F minutes
McCool: any objections to the above proposal?
(no objections)
RESOLUTION: accept the TPAC 2019 F2F minutes
McCool: slides marked as "TBD" should be installed on GitHub
Kaz: please install your slides to the presentation area
[15]PRESENTATIONS area
[15] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/PRESENTATIONS
McCool: note that slide sets for F2F meetings should be
installed under the f2f areas
... (shows the f2f area for Fukuoka meeting)
<McCool>
[16]https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/f2f/2019/09-fukuoka
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/f2f/2019/09-fukuoka
<McCool>
[17]https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/f2f/2019/09-fukuoka/
2019-09_WoT-AC.pdf
[17] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/f2f/2019/09-fukuoka/2019-09_WoT-AC.pdf
McCool: f2f-specific slides should go to under the f2f area
like the one above
... summary ones can be copied to the main PRESENTATIONS area
<McCool>
[18]https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/PRESENTATIONS
[18] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/PRESENTATIONS
Kaz: ah, yes, sorry for wrongly putting the main PRESENTATIONS
area for the f2f slides on the main call wiki...
McCool: np
New calls
McCool: WG Charter
... please generate issues if you have comments
... Security
... we had difficulty with people's participation in the
security calls
... e.g., Oliver from Siemens?
Sebastian: we have already made announcement about Oliver's
participation again
... had a meeting with him yesterday
... he can join the main call next week
... also will actively join the security calls
<McCool> security doodle:
[19]https://doodle.com/poll/t6uxq6uvacqt63bt
[19] https://doodle.com/poll/t6uxq6uvacqt63bt
McCool: please let him know about the above doodle then
... hopefully from next week, we can start the new slot
IG Charter review
McCool: we got 24 supports
... one comment was adding the Web&Networks IG to section 4.1
... Kaz has generated a PR for that purpose
[20]PR 891
[20] https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/891
McCool: that adds an entry for Web&Networks IG to 4.1
... any objections to merge this?
(no objections)
McCool: (merges PR 891)
<McCool> proposal: forward the final IG Charter to W3M for
approval
RESOLUTION: confirm the final IG charter sent to W3M for
approval
Privacy
McCool: had discussion with the Privacy IG
... we have very tight schedule to address the issues
... need to publish an updated CR2
... updated process is
* Release candidates available Oct 18 for Arch and TD
* If no objections, then CR2 transition will take place Oct 21
at 11:59pm JST (11am EDT)
McCool: and submit the transition request on 22nd
... major issues based on the feedback from the Privacy IG
... PLH's feedback covers what we need to do
[21]PLH's feedback (Member-only)
[21] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2019Oct/0027.html
McCool: to PRs 820 and 820 to address PING issues
... to be confirmed during the TD call on Oct 18
... require another CR publication
... detailed timeline:
- review the draft for CR2 during main call on 16. October
- final release candidate on 18. October
- do resolution about release candidate via email. Deadline for
this will be 21. October.
- transition request to CR2 on 22. October
- publication of CR2 on 29. October
- transition request to PR on 3. December
- publication of PR on 29. October 10. December
- have REC 14 Jan 2020
McCool: regarding Architecture
... issue 390 raised by PING
... Lagally's response provide
... including the description on our privacy consideration
section including possible risks and mitigations
[22]Lagally's response
[22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/390#issuecomment-540432763
McCool: PR 394, 395, 396 made
... PLH's suggestion:
It would be better to mention the risk of "id" (esp. unique
ID's being mandatory and we made it optional and removed the
uniqueness) within the section 10. We might want to add one
more PR for that purpose.
Lagally: Architecture also needs a 2nd CR?
Kaz: yes
Lagally: would like to discuss the pros/cons during the
Architecture call tomorrow
McCool: note that the terminology sections within the TD and
the Architecture should be also informative to be consistent
with the reference from TD to Architecture
Lagally: should be discussed/confirmed during the Architecture
call tomorrow
David: there was a concern from the Privacy IG during the TPAC
f2f that privacy section was not normative
... what is the status about that?
McCool: our long-term plan is eventually generating a (updated)
Architecture with normative things
... eventually should have some concrete mechanism (at some
point)
Kaz: (explains the history so far)
... we had 2 joint calls with the Privacy IG after TPAC and got
OK from them if we remove "unique" from the "id" feature, and
make the feature optional
... we also need to make the reference from TD to Architecture
informative
David: tx for clarification
McCool: there was some confusion about our specs as well
... believe we can get through the process now
... go to 2nd CRs for TD and Architecture
... expecting no objections
... if you have any objection, please work quickly so that we
can solve it
... should be done as GitHub issues
Lagally: might make sense to encourage people to provide
constructive solution as well when they raise issues (if
possible)
... what need to be done to solve the issue
McCool: right
... (type in the proposed resolution)
<McCool> proposal: given release candidates for Architecture
and TD specifications are available by Oct 18, if there are no
outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm, we will proceed
with requesting CR transitions for these documents
Kaz: meaning "11:59pm JST" by "11:59pm"?
McCool: right
<McCool> proposal: given a release candidate for the WoT
Architecture document is available by Oct 18, if there are no
outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm JST, we will
proceed with requesting a CR transition for this document
McCool: any objections?
Lagally: saying "given" sounds like it's already done
McCool: let's say "assuming" instead then
<McCool> proposal: Assuming the availability of a release
candidate for the WoT Architecture document is available by Oct
18, if there are no outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm
JST, we will proceed with requesting a CR transition for this
document
(no objections)
RESOLUTION: Assuming the availability of a release candidate
for the WoT Architecture document is available by Oct 18, if
there are no outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm JST,
we will proceed with requesting a CR transition for this
document
RESOLUTION: Assuming the availability of a release candidate
for the WoT Thing Description document is available by Oct 18,
if there are no outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm
JST, we will proceed with requesting a CR transition for this
document
McCool: let's have resolution for the timeline and process
first and then another resolution on what "outstanding
objections" means
<McCool> proposal: "outstanding objection" will mean a written
github issue filed that directly addresses a problem with a
release candidate
<McCool> proposal: "outstanding objection" will mean a written
github issue in the corresponding repository filed that
directly addresses a problem with a release candidate
McCool: what those proposed resolutions sound?
Lagally: ok
McCool: any objections?
(none)
RESOLUTION: "outstanding objection" will mean a written github
issue in the corresponding repository filed that directly
addresses a problem with a release candidate
Scripting next steps
Zoltan: how to continue the work on Scripting?
... CG? new CG or the WoT CG?
... WG? part of the work as a Note?
McCool: right now, the proposed WG Charter has Scripting as a
WG Note
... CG can also work on Scripting
Zoltan: note CG Report is not normative
McCool: if we create a CG for Scripting, we should remove it
from the WG Charter
Zoltan: advantage of the CG work is time-free
Sebastian: prefer keeping the Scripting API work within the WG
Charter
... and publish it as a WG Note
... would let us guarantee the content to be more aligned with
the main documents like TD
... not sure if that's possible if it goes to a separate CG
McCool: having external participation would be useful
... but not sure about which way would be better
... having related deliverables at one point would be cleaner
Zoltan: would be easier to have a separate CG to define APIs
Sebastian: API discussion is already open on the GitHub
... external people also have opportunity to give contributions
Zoltan: we don't have to make the conclusion now
... can make the decision later
McCool: is there any IP requirement?
Kaz: good question
... we need to think about that if we really want to transfer
the Scripting APIs draft to a CG
... regarding the next step for Scripting itself, I'd agree
with Zoltan that we don't need to make the conclusion during
this call
... we should continue the discussion and the WoT participants
are encouraged to understand how to use the Scripting APIs,
e.g., for the PlugFest
... For example, I think it would be nice to have a tutorial
session on the Scripting APIs for the group participants so
that people can understand how to use Scripting APIs within
node-wot for PlugFest.
... maybe we could do that kind of tutorial during the
Scripting calls
Daniel: we should keep the scripting work within the WG
... we have the WoT CG but it's not really active
... regarding the question about IPR, there was similar problem
with TD, I thought
McCool: do you think the Scripting call is a WG call? or an IG
call?
... unfortunately we're running out of time
AOB?
McCool: today we'll not have the PlugFest call
... had discussion with Kaz, and we think we still need
clarification on testing, etc.
... also we need a champion/moderator for the PlugFest work
... would ask for a volunteer
... meantime, we need to work on the specs
... so today we won't have the PlugFest call
... next week would see a volunteer
... any other business?
Lagally: please participate in the Architecture call tomorrow
... if you have any concern, please raise an issue beforehand
and join the Architecture call tomorrow
McCool: anything else?
(none)
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [23]accept the TPAC 2019 F2F minutes
2. [24]confirm the final IG charter sent to W3M for approval
3. [25]Assuming the availability of a release candidate for
the WoT Architecture document is available by Oct 18, if
there are no outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm
JST, we will proceed with requesting a CR transition for
this document
4. [26]Assuming the availability of a release candidate for
the WoT Thing Description document is available by Oct 18,
if there are no outstanding objections by Oct 21 at 11:59pm
JST, we will proceed with requesting a CR transition for
this document
5. [27]"outstanding objection" will mean a written github
issue in the corresponding repository filed that directly
addresses a problem with a release candidate
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([29]CVS log)
$Date: 2019/10/16 16:26:53 $
[28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2019 16:28:30 UTC