- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:24:00 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/05/20-wot-arch-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael McCool!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
¡V DRAFT ¡V
WoT Architecture
20 May 2021
[2]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/20-wot-arch-irc
Attendees
Present
Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster,
Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura,
Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Lagally
Scribe
McCool
Contents
1. [3]Minutes
2. [4]Discovery PR #588
3. [5]carry over requirements to use cases #72
4. [6]Summary of action items
Meeting minutes
Minutes
<mlagally> [7]https://
www.w3.org/2021/04/29-wot-arch-minutes.html
[7] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/29-wot-arch-minutes.html
<mlagally> [8]https://
www.w3.org/2021/05/06-wot-arch-minutes.html
[8] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/06-wot-arch-minutes.html
McCool: ml was not available, so we merged mostly editorial
PRs, then created a pre-restructure branch so more radical PRs
would still have a convenient rollback point
McCool: btw, it seems some people are assuming directories will
follow the profile but I had not previously considered this to
be a requirement. But it MAY may sense... we will have to
explicitly discuss in the next call
Lagally: any objections to publishing the minutes?
Lagally: hearing no objections, minutes are approved
Discovery PR #588
<kaz> [9]wot-architecture PR 588 - Add Discovery refs, dfn, and
section
[9] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/588
McCool: basically just added a couple of paragraphs that
describe the purpose and basic architecture of the Discovery
service
McCool: notice the strong emphasis on security and privacy
Lagally: we should be explicit about what is normative
McCool: in particular, it is not required that discovery be
done using WoT Discovery, that there is a WoT TDD, or that
peer-to-peer is supported
¡K so I would suggest merging this but I can add another
paragraph in a new PR to make these points explicit
¡K probably a "MAY NOT" assertion? Not sure
McCool: we probably do want to *encourage* use of WoT
discovery, but not require it
carry over requirements to use cases #72
Lagally: housekeeping, just merge; carried over to use case
repo
¡K is in the repo, not the document
<mlagally> [10]wot-profile PR 72 - carry over requirements to
use cases TF
[10] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/72
McCool: should we reschedule the arch call?
Lagally: let's try contacting Ben first to see if he has an
ongoing problem
Lagally: Summary of action items
... Mccool to check the pagination response codes in the
discovery spec
... Ben to double check the list of error codes in WebThings
Lagally: check error codes of Oracle's digital twin
implementation
... Daniel to double check node-wot's error codes, are there
error response payloads?
<kaz> [adjourned]
Summary of action items
1. [11]items:
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[12]scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).
[12] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Monday, 12 July 2021 08:24:08 UTC