- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 16:22:35 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/03/04-wot-arch-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
WoT Architecture
04 March 2021
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#March_4th.2C_2021
[3] https://www.w3.org/2021/03/04-wot-arch-irc
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,
Philipp_Blum, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Lagally
Scribe
kaz
Contents
1. [4]prev minutes
2. [5]vF2F
3. [6]Terminology (revisited)
Meeting minutes
prev minutes
[7]Feb-25
[7] https://www.w3.org/2021/02/25-wot-arch-minutes.html
Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
Lagally: any problems?
(none; approved)
vF2F
[8]vF2F agenda
[8] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_March_2021#Agenda
Lagally: (goes through the agenda for March 22)
… terminology, ITU-T liaison, ...
… partial TD discussion?
McCool: terminology discussion? or use case discussion?
… maybe could move this topic earlier during the terminology
session
Lagally: (moves "partial TD" topic to the terminology session)
McCool: another issue is validation
Lagally: (adds "TD validation" as well to the terminology
session)
… ("framing" too)
McCool: also should discuss here or during the TD day
… relate to both TD and discovery, so during the Architecture
call makes sense
… not only terminology but also part of TD discussion
Sebastian: btw, some kind of introductory talk at the beginning
would be useful, wouldn't it?
Lagally: good point
McCool: each subsection from each day has assigned owner
… and those owners are to generate some introduction
Lagally: will clean up the remaining issues on GitHub
… and assign them to proper people
McCool: my expectation is closing all the terminology issues
during the vF2F
Lagally: ok
Kaz: just wanted to make sure the introduction at the beginning
is strictly focused on the topics from that day
all: right
Kaz: also should make sure the introduction should be brief
enough :)
… we already have introduction session on the first day, March
15
… so please make sure to use the additional introduction
sessions on other days in a productive manner ;)
McCool: let's have some more discussion during the main call
Lagally: (moves ahead)
… what about Profiles?
McCool: need to get resolution about one or multiple profiles
Sebastian: core profile now and additional profiles later?
Lagally: that's my understanding as well
Sebastian: my question is still about the term of "core",
though
McCool: if we have constrained devices, do we want to define
some profile for them?
Sebastian: WoT as a whole doesn't care about what the devices
actually are
Lagally: having the information about the expected classes to
avoid confusion on the gateways, etc.
Sebastian: wondering about concrete use cases for this approach
Lagally: we're working on a use case
Sebastian: what is the real use case and scenario then?
Kaz: so we're generating some concrete use case description now
… and will discuss that during the vF2F
Lagally: (shows RFC7228 as the basis of the class definition)
[9]RFC 7228
[9] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7228
Lagally: this definition is just a proposal at the moment
McCool: btw, class 3 might be for something like gateway
… on the other hand, class 4/5 are more for something like
Raspberry Pi
… and Class 6 can be a server
… the classes are defined by IETF by an RFC
… and what to do next is thinking about what capacity is
required for what purposes
… target platform based on some given function
Sebastian: even a constrained device can generate some big
Thing Description
Kaz: in that case, maybe we need to think about TAT as well as
the hardware power
<citrullin> [10]The minutes about some potential issue with
constrained devices in security
[10] https://www.w3.org/2021/02/15-wot-sec-minutes.html
McCool: also thought about that
… but memory, etc., are easier to start with
Kaz: ok, starting with easier point is fine
McCool: do we keep it as a PR to see the preview?
Lagally: can push the changes so that we can see them
… (push some updates to PR 70)
[11]PR 70 - 5. Device Categories
[11] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-profile/70/594c374...c4b57d1.html#device-categoriesdevices
McCool: would fill in something from the security viewpoint
… minimal requirements for secure systems
Terminology (revisited)
[12]PR 582 - 3. Terminology
[12] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-architecture/582/c0c8113...mmccool:31e933d.html#terminology
Lagally: (goes through the changes)
McCool: partial TD
… Shadow
… TDD
… TD Element - replacement of "TD Fragment"
Lagally: note we need another entry for "Thing Description
Element"
McCool: right
… there is a definition a bit below (after "Thing Model")
… still need further work here
… my hope is leave this PR 582, get more feedback, and finalize
the terminology during the vF2F
Lagally: ok
McCool: we should separate the definition itself and the name
of terms
Lagally: ok
McCool: please do give comments on the PR 582
Lagally: ok
… will ask the group to do so
… AOB?
Sebastian: still have an impression that my concern is not
handled seriously enough...
McCool: let's see what the real issues here
Sebastian: would like to see the actual purpose of the profile
Kaz: would suggest we clarify what we want to have by defining
"profiles"
… and see use cases and scenarios based on some concrete device
settings
Sebastian: would be nice to create an issue to collect concrete
scenarios
McCool: ok
[13]Issue 71 - Collect Use Cases and Scenarios for Profiles
[13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/71
[adjourned]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[14]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).
[14] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2021 07:22:39 UTC