[wot-architecture] minutes - 15 April 2021

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/04/15-wot-arch-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael Koster!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                            WoT Architecture

15 April 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#April_15th.2C_2021
      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/15-wot-arch-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Michael_Lagally,
          Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Lagally

   Scribe
          kaz, mjk

Contents

    1. [4]Minutes
         1. [5]March 11
         2. [6]vF2F minutes
    2. [7]Issue 73
    3. [8]Implementations and test
    4. [9]Profile
    5. [10]canonical TD
    6. [11]AOB

Meeting minutes

  Minutes

    March 11

   [12]March-11

     [12] https://www.w3.org/2021/03/11-wot-arch-minutes.html

   [13]vF2F Day 3/4

     [13] https://www.w3.org/2021/03/15-25-wot-minutes.html#d3

   Lagally: (updates the agenda wiki)
   … starting with the March 11 minutes

   Lagally: minutes approved to publish

    vF2F minutes

   <kaz> [14]vF2F Day 3/4

     [14] https://www.w3.org/2021/03/15-25-wot-minutes.html#d3

   McCool: will refactor the terminology document soon

   Lagally: any other concerns besides the one typo?

   McCool: Philippe Coval name seems mis-spelled

   McCool: what is Philippe's role? is it listed correctly as a
   guest?

   McCool: make sure he is listed for the day in which he made the
   comments

   <kaz> (added Coval and fixed typos)

   Lagally: any objections to approving?
   … approved

  Issue 73

   <kaz> [15]wot-profile Issue 73 - Refine Goals and Scope

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/73

   Lagally: reviewing the profile goals and scope issue discussion

   Lagally: let's keep the discussion focused and avoid CoAP,
   MQTT< etc.

   McCool: agree, let's meet the needs for webthings as a priority

   Lagally: is there any issue with the proposal around http,
   JSON, and default protocol binding

   Sebastian: this looks good for a http/JSON baseline and
   template for creating future profiles
   … we should adopt only what really makes sense based on the
   experience we have
   … we need to discuss websockets

   McCool: websockets is not yet developed in our group
   … no really good agreed solution
   … let's focus on the non-controversial points

   Sebastian: maybe the items listed in brackets are considered
   optional

   McCool: we could leave events open to implementation

   McCool: http could use long polling for observe
   … OK if the profile leaves some things open

   Lagally: read, write property and invoke action only
   … bare minimum

  Implementations and test

   Lagally: is there any more input from the plugfest?

   McCool: there was activity around TM conversion and discovery,
   not as much about device to device
   … June plugfest will be focused on higher level questions also

   <kaz> [16]doodle for the next testfest

     [16] https://doodle.com/poll/mzv9x5rxsdmub5u3

   McCool: to test the profile we will need a test plan and two
   implementations

   McCool: to reduce risks we can keep it simple

   McCool: can replicate the current assertion mechanism for
   discovery and profile

   McCool: we should break out the architecture assertions
   separately
   … each spec should have its own plan, report, assertions...

   Lagally: what's the process for marking up for the assertions?

   McCool: look at the TD one for examples

   McCool: tables have some particular patterns

   McCool: wait to see what comes from webthings

   McCool: the implementation report is generated as a snapshot
   … what are the architecture assertions?
   … terminology is normative

   Lagally: issue #74 can be linked to the issues #75 and #76

   McCool: the tooling needs to be set up
   … once set up, the tooling can identify assertions by the span
   markup

   <kaz> [17]wot-profile Issue 74 - Highlighting assertions

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/74

   <kaz> [18]wot-profile Issue 75 - Implementation Report

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/75

   <kaz> [19]wot-profile Issue 76 - Markup of normative
   requirements (RFC 2119)

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/76

   <kaz> [20]wot-architecture Issue 589 - Implementation report

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/589

  Profile

   <kaz> [21]wot-profile Issue 73 - Refine Goals and Scope

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/73

   McCool: it's OK to publish a small and simple profile spec to
   start with

   Lagally: we need to see what is in the webthings proposal

   McCool: the outline looks acceptable

   McCool: any objections?

   Sebastian: there are more topics to discuss, so we can leave
   this as is for now

   Lagally: we need to define action and error behavior

   Sebastian: should we wait for feedback from Ben?

   McCool: it could add 2 weeks delay

   McCool: let's note our agreement to adopt the structure of
   "Protocol Binding" in the issues

   Koster: agree with the things not in brackets, and the
   bracketed items can be left to implementations

   Koster: also agree that templated URIs and data schemas can be
   included somehow

   McCool: that's a longer discussion

   Lagally: also is TD scope

  canonical TD

   <kaz> [22]wot-thing-description PR 1086 - Add section to define
   Canonical serialization

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1086

   McCool: still working on the specification of the canonical
   form
   … identifying assertions and thinking about implementation
   … need to find a library to process JCF

   McCool: there is an issue with how to handle the defaults in TD
   extensions, like http vocabulary
   … defaults are required to be omitted in the canonical form
   … RDF processors will fill in the defaults
   … it makes round-trip processing an issue
   … also an issue of regenerating prefixes
   … (discussion around tradeoffs and issues in TD
   canonicalization)

   Lagally: canonicalization won't impact the profile spec

   Lagally: the profile needs to restrict content types

   Lagally: should the profile allow communication without TLS?

   <kaz> [23]WoT Profile Editor's draft - 5.2 Protocol Binding

     [23] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/#protocol-binding

   McCool: the local hub server can't use TLS because TLS requires
   some PKI infrastructure
   … we could provide object security with raw keys

   McCool: browsers require root certificates

   McCool: the base plan is to use HTTP without TLS
   … we could allow http but highly recommend https

   Lagally: is there a way we can require https for remote
   interactions?

   Lagally: we seem to be reaching a common understanding
   … time to close the meeting

  AOB

   Lagally: there are a lot of outstanding issues

   <kaz> [24]outstanding issues for wot-profile

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

   McCool: maybe we can defer a lot of these and some may not be
   relevant in the context of the simple profile

   Lagally: any other business?
   … adjourn


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [25]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).

     [25] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2021 07:26:24 UTC