W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > September 2020

[wot-security] minutes - 31 August 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 10:37:08 +0900
Message-ID: <87blifk9x7.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Clerley!



      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                              WoT Security

31 Aug 2020


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Clerley_Silveira,
          Cristiano_Aguzzi, David_Ezell, Oliver_Pfaff

          Elena, Mizushima




     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Reviewing meeting minutes
         2. [4]PRs for TD
         3. [5]Reconsider OAuth2 mandatory items
         4. [6]Directory Security
         5. [7]Lifecycle Review
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions

   <inserted> scribenick: clerley

Reviewing meeting minutes

   McCool: Meeting minutes for Aug, 24 2020 approved with one

PRs for TD

   McCool: Topic review what is in the TD.

   <inserted> [10]PR 944

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/944

   McCool: Recommending that combination security scheme be

   <kaz> [11]PR 945

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/945

   McCool: Requesting review for "Simplified inline security
   ... To assign it to Cristiano
   ... Add proof and proofChain still a work in progress. It will
   not be merged this week. Needs to be review.

Reconsider OAuth2 mandatory items

   <McCool> [12]https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/issues/181

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/issues/181

   McCool: Issue with making authentication/authorization items
   ... How to deal if what the device returns is different?
   ... Making the scheme optional and decide when to make the
   changes to the TD spec. Is it reasonable to make it optional.

   Cristiano: If user does not know the Authentication scheme. The
   device would have to make a post request to the server to find
   ... For that reason, it should be mandatory.
   ... Understands the point. It should be dynamic.

   McCool: That is a discovery challenge.

   Cristiano: Should make it optional but recommended

   McCool: The reason to leave the Authentication in the TD is so
   that the device can get the access token to make sure it is
   ... Are there use cases where we should not add the
   authentication server to the TD? If there is, it should not be
   ... Added more information to issue 181
   ... In practice, how often would you want to change the
   authentication server?

   Cristiano: Does not think frequently.

   McCool: No clear cut case to make it optional or mandatory.
   ... Existing schemes must be mandatory for backwards
   ... Version 2 can break backwards compatibility and we can make
   it optional.
   ... keep it asis now, and apply the changes to v2

   Cristiano: Agrees. That is a good plan.

   McCool: Marked issue 181 as deferred.

Directory Security

   McCool: Discuss it in the discovery call. Thinks OAuth but, he
   is not sure what scheme to use.

Lifecycle Review

   <inserted> [13]Issue 169

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/issues/169

   Oliver: Looked at the issue and left a comment.
   ... Walking through the comments.
   ... Thinks RFC8576 already has good information.

   McCool: Is surprised there is no citation.

   Oliver: We should be consistent. Suggestion: Even if there is a
   reason to make a state machine transformation, it should be
   consistent with the RFC.

   McCool: Make relationship to RFC8576 explicit.

   Oliver: Make differentiation between "Consumer WoT vs
   Industrial WoT"

   McCool: Who is the user? Industrial vs Consumer. For consumer,
   the data must be deleted. That does not make sense for
   industrial devices.

   Oliver: It is a complicated discussion. Even if an industrial
   WoT component the data created by the device is owned by
   ... From a legal perspective, if you go to court, one cannot
   debate it. It is unusual to call it user data.
   ... It will raise questions for some people.

   McCool: The life cycle is supposed to give stakeholders an
   opportunity to manage their data.
   ... In Europe, consumers have an option to request that their
   data be deleted.

   Oliver: His suggestion is to call it data. The data can be
   attributed to different kinds of stakeholders.
   ... In Germany, it could be defined by mutual agreement.

   McCool: Would like to define it operationally. During
   operation, certain data is accumulated in the device. The life
   cycle can reset the state back to manufacture and delete all
   the data.
   ... Define user data operationally as data that has been added
   to the device after it becomes operational.

   Oliver: Thinks that is a good concept. Depends on what the
   system is, it may or may not contain consumer data.
   ... There is data that must be added to the device when the
   device is installed. He thinks defining the data that way makes
   ... Operational vs Installation vs Consumer Data.

   McCool: Probably need another lifecycle to define how the data
   is used, removed. That would address privacy concerns.
   ... The current lifecycle is correct!
   ... Could installer data be PII? Thinks as long as the data can
   be destroyed, "we" should be ok.

   Oliver: Agrees, thinks the lifecycle allow for the removal of
   all data.

   McCool: Thinks that should be explicit. All the data can be

   Oliver: Display issue with the "reset" state. It looked like
   the actor had to do something. The Manufacture has nothing to
   do, it was a little confusing the way it was displaying things.
   ... Has to provide functionally that would support bringing the
   device back to manufacture state.
   ... Will review his comment 4. The comment is incomplete.

   McCool: A consumer can buy a device but it needs to use the
   ... For that reason, there is a need to differentiate device
   from the service.

   Oliver: Thinks there are both cases, the consumer owns the
   device but, it relies on somebody's else service.
   ... And in other cases, there is no service required.

   McCool: A user could be the owner and the service provider.
   ... It is easier to talk about roles.
   ... Thinks the word "role" should be added to every mentioned.
   User role, service provider role...

   Oliver: Agrees! That way there is no need to make assumptions.

   McCool: Would like to bring up the issue in the Architecture
   meeting. Would like to create a PR to close the issue.


Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([15]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/09/07 12:11:23 $

     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2020 01:37:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 9 September 2020 01:37:15 UTC