[wot-discovery] minutes - 26 April 2021

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/04/26-wot-discovery-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Cristiano!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                             WoT Discovery

26 April 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Discovery_WebConf#26_April_2021
      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/26-wot-discovery-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Christian_Glomb, Cristiano_Aguzzi,
          Farshid_Tavakolizadeh, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura,
          Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          McCool

   Scribe
          cris

Contents

    1. [4]Agenda
    2. [5]Minutes
    3. [6]PRs
         1. [7]PR 161
         2. [8]PR 163
         3. [9]PR 162
    4. [10]testing

Meeting minutes

  Agenda

   McCool: Koster can't join us today, he has a conflict

  Minutes

   McCool: minutes looks good
   … there's just a minor formatting issue

   <kaz> [11]Apr-19

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/19-wot-discovery-minutes.html

   Kaz: if we want I can change the style

   McCool: that's fine
   … any other concerns?
   … ok minutes will be published

   topic quick updates

   McCool: we should talk about a test plan before the publication
   … we are close to first publication check the current branch

  PRs

   McCool: we have 6 PRs

   <kaz> [12]PRs

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pulls

   McCool: two from Farshid and 4 from Ben
   … however Ben is not here, we might need to wait

   Farshid: Ben already knows the issues about his PRs, I suggest
   to create a branch and merge the pr there

   McCool: are all Refactoring PRs?

   Farshid: yes

    PR 161

   <kaz> [13]PR 161 - Rename DirectoryDescription to
   ThingDirectory

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/161

   <kaz> (McCool adds a comment)

   <kaz> [14]McCool's comment

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/161#issuecomment-826921972

    PR 163

   <kaz> [15]PR 163 - Add pagination references and improve
   anonymous TD definition

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/163

   Farshid: we don't have a query parameter to ask for un-enrich
   TDs in queries
   … I discussed with Andrea about the format of enriched data
   … we are thinking about flatting everything to have consistent
   look

   McCool: I am worried about canonization and signing
   … enriched metadata would brake signing
   … maybe we could define an original option that force the
   directory to serve the original string

   Farshid: it's a good option

   McCool: with original we don't force a particular storage
   option, if the directory is confident that it can reproduce the
   exact same document it can even chose to store the TD in other
   formats
   … the PR is not ready to merge, there are some issues still
   left

   Farshid: actually the issues was already present and PR improve
   the current situation

   <kaz> [16]Preview diff - 6.2.1 Information Model

     [16] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-discovery/163/581dacc...farshidtz:d3f6ef2.html#exploration-directory-info

   McCool: Yeah I've just noticed that statement that I was
   worrying about was previously added.
   … ok then we can merge this and create an issue with follow up
   actions
   … any other comments?
   … ok I'll create related issues

   McCool: maybe enriched contains sensible information like the
   creation time. So it might be a problem to make it the default
   … issue created

   [17]Issue 165 - Add Ability to Retrieve Original TD

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/165

   McCool: merging PR 163

    PR 162

   <kaz> [18]PR 162 - Expiry date for registered TDs

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/162

   McCool: I was not sure about the format of the embedded graph.
   I would use a not a proprietary format
   … we need to export it to an svg file

   Farshid: btw is not used in the spec, just file that is there

   McCool: I see that you added the expires field as a date time
   … I saw a few issues: what happens if the directory has
   policies more restrictive than the date requested?

   Farshid: this negotiation is hard

   McCool: I imagining a negotiation with errors, simply saying
   that the expiration date is too far in the future

   Farshid: so should we had an assertion that the directory could
   implement this policy

   McCool: yeah

   Farshid: I can add it

   McCool: let's keep this PR and include this proposal in the
   current PR
   … about expire time do we want a Date or a Period?

   Farshid: TTL is hard cause proxies may cause delays so the
   period will be elongated
   … plus there are also problems for caching

   McCool: I agree the delays might be a problem.

   Farshid: HTTP has both mechanisms they have different meanings
   do we want to support both

   McCool: For registration I think we need both but in the DB we
   might choose one

   Cristiano: how the delays are useful?

   McCool: not sure, but at least we can think about cases where
   devices does not have a RTC clock
   … so that they can't really provide a specific date

   Farshid: I feel that putting time of retrival in a TD is not
   the right place
   … what about the remaining life time?

   McCool: it is another option

   Farshid: could we try to define applications that really needs
   about this feature?

   McCool: ok so we conclude to make few updates and then merge

  testing

   McCool: what do you guys currently have as test cases
   … if we have automated testing systems
   … we can apply it to multiple implementations
   … the other option is to let the implementers assert a
   particular function

   Farshid: we have a test suite
   … I could turn it as a github action

   McCool: we could have a repo
   … it would be optimal to have a csv file that reports if an
   assertion pass or fail

   Farshid: I can format it

   <kaz> [adjourned]


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

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

Received on Monday, 24 May 2021 09:33:30 UTC