W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > January 2021

[wot-architecture] minutes - 10 December 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:24:38 +0900
Message-ID: <87eeisndft.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/12/10-wot-arch-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael McCool!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                            WoT Architecture

10 Dec 2020

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Agenda

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Tomoaki_Mizushima,
          Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Michael_Koster

   Regrets

   Chair
          Lagally

   Scribe
          McCool, kaz

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]minutes review
         2. [5]issue review
         3. [6]TD fragments
         4. [7]New terminology for Binding
         5. [8]Lifecycle and ownership
         6. [9]lifecycles
         7. [10]canonical forms
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     * [12]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   scribenick: McCool

minutes review

   Dec 3

   <kaz> [13]Dec-3 minutes

     [13] https://www.w3.org/2020/12/03-wot-arch-minutes.html

   had a discussion of signing but deferred until McCool could
   join

   <inserted> (no objections and approved)

issue review

   issues, security terminology

   [14]Issues and identifier need clear definitions

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues

   <kaz> [15]Issue 571 - identity and identifier need clear
   definitions

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/571

   RFC4949 noted by Oliver Pfaff

   scribenick: kaz

   Lagally: we could add this kind of text
   ... good approach to refer to RFC

   scribenick: McCool

   Lagally: a little concerned that some text is omitted, etc; do
   we really want to cut and paste, etc.

   McCool: maybe we should just have a reference

   Lagally: am ok with that, since RFCs are stable.

   McCool: definitions are a little strange

   Lagally: but can we have something better?

   McCool: suggest we just put a reference to RFC4949 for now.

   <kaz> [16]RFC4949

     [16] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4949

   Lagally: think we should let oliver do this..

   McCool: will talk to him, but probably won't see a PR until the
   new year

   Lagally: also System

   McCool: I'm down for an MR

   Kaz: DID also refers to some of these concepts but seems
   currently uses wikipedia

   <kaz> [17]DID WD

     [17] https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-did-core-20201108/

   McCool: we should coordinate

   Kaz: probably eventually will need something more stable

   Lagally: what is their timeline?

   <kaz> [18]DID WG page

     [18] https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/

   McCool: look into; also, let's note in issue tracker that a ref
   to DID would be useful
   ... and possibly also ISO; see existing defn of "Security"

TD fragments

   issue #574

   <kaz> [19]Issue 574

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/574

   McCool: there are also usages for this in discovery, where a
   query can return part of a TD
   ... I personally prefer partial TD, but let's stick to one term
   ... we could say "JSON that partially satisfies the TD
   specification"
   ... and can be inserted or expanded into a full TD

   Lagally: ok (adds suggested defn to issue)

New terminology for Binding

   Lagally: issue #575, new terminology from binding document

   <kaz> [20]Issue 575

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/575

   Lagally: three terms: vocabulary, term, and context extension

   McCool: it seems we have the "specific" term "domain-specific
   vocabulary" but not the general term "vocabulary"
   ... probably we should look at the TD spec and make sure we are
   not defining things redundantly

   <kaz> [21]terminology issues

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/labels/terminology

Lifecycle and ownership

   issue 570, ownership

   <kaz> [22]Issue 570

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/570

   McCool: so I guess one issue... should we even care about
   "ownership"? What we care about is who has rights to do what
   ... maybe we should talk about "transfer of access rights"
   rather than "ownership"

   Kaz: would agree
   ... for example, if we live within an apartment building, the
   "Ownership" should be a bit different from the one for the
   house owner.

   McCool: also note that ownership does not necessarily map into
   access rights, e.g. landlord/tenants

lifecycles

   issue #561, simplify/add lifecycles

   <kaz> [23]Issue 561

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/561

   Lagally: from issue; "why do we have these"

   McCool: maybe the issue is we just need some text explaining
   why we have these; he's not necessarily arguing against them
   ... maybe we can just ask zoltan which interpretation he
   meant...

   <kaz> [24]RFC7515

     [24] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7515

   <kaz> [25]wot-profile Issue 55

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/55

   <kaz> [26]wot-profile PR 57

     [26] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/57.html#external-td-representations

canonical forms

   McCool: summarized JWS, JSON-LD, LD-Proofs, etc.

   issue 55, need to make some choices... where it goes, verbosity
   or terseness, dealing with defaults, ...

   McCool: relationship to signing

   <kaz> [27]JOSE Documents

     [27] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jose/documents/

   McCool: regarding encryption of TDs, one option is to use LWE
   ... with corresponds with using JWS for signing
   ... we may want to limit it to a particular set of algorithm
   ... especially ones that have not been compromized, but are
   also appropriate to small devices
   ... one idea is to look at what the COSE group recommends;
   there will be some overlap with JOSE

   <kaz> [28]RFC8152 - COSE

     [28] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8152

   scribenick: kaz

   Kaz: wondering about the relationship between this "canonical
   TD" and the "Thing Model"

   Lagally: need to work on both

   <kaz> [29]wot-profile Issue 58

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/58

   <kaz> [30]Lagally's comments

     [30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/58#issue-761415021

   

   * Single element form with square brackets for security is
   deprecated, but not for any of the other single array ids.

   * We have to find a way that allows canonicalisation and works
   for the 1.1 release of the spec.

   ]]

   [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [31]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([32]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/12/17 15:01:46 $

     [31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 11 January 2021 07:24:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 11 January 2021 07:24:44 UTC