- 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