Re: What to do with WoT Profiles 1.0

Thank you again for the feedback so far. We've now gone over a month with
no further feedback so I assume that anyone who had opinions to share have
now shared it.

We have now landed several PRs (#407
<https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/407>, #408
<https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/408> and #411
<https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/411>) which address some of that
feedback and have proposed refinements (#412
<https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/412> and #414
<https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/414>) of the Motivation section
and Explainer to help clarify the purpose of Profiles. There are still a
couple of other refinements that I think could be made to further address
the feedback given here (#403
<https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/403> and #404
<https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/404>) which we will address in
due course, but I would like to encourage the Working Group to now move
towards a decision in order to unblock the work of the Profiles task force.

Following a discussion in the Profiles task force call today, I would like
to put forward draft resolution text (based on option 1 proposed above) as
a starting point for *a discussion in the WoT Main call tomorrow*. This
resolution would establish Working Group consensus to continue with the
current approach taken by the Profiles specification for WoT 1.0 (assuming
enough implementations emerge), with a view to then taking a more
structured approach
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-wg/2024Feb/0000.html> in
WoT 2.0.

*Draft resolution:* We agree as a Working Group that for Profiles 1.0
profile specifications are allowed to define protocol bindings that go
beyond what can currently be described with binding templates, as a more
prescriptive but unambiguous option to guarantee interoperability between
greenfield implementations. The Profiles task force will work towards a
Candidate Recommendation of profiles 1.0, publicise a request for
implementations, and if there are sufficient implementations then proceed
to Proposed Recommendation.

Kind regards

Ben

On Wed, 29 May 2024 at 16:35, Ben Francis <ben@krellian.com> wrote:

> Just a reminder that there is still no resolution to this question.
>
> Thank you to everyone who has responded so far, and there are open issues
> <https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues> and pull requests
> <https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pulls> to address some of the
> specific feedback that has come out of that discussion (some of which has
> now been resolved), but we still don't have an answer to the high level
> question.
>
> I understand there is currently discussion about how to "revitalise" the
> Profile task force, but the task force can't really make any progress until
> a wider consensus is reached on whether to continue with the specification
> in its current form.  Until that question is answered Profile task force
> meetings seem fairly pointless, which might be why so few people are
> attending them.
>
> I think we need to hear a wider set of opinions on the two options
> proposed (or alternative proposals) before we know which to put forward as
> a formal resolution:
>
> *Option 1*
>> Agree as a Working Group that for Profiles 1.0 profile specifications are
>> allowed to define protocol bindings that go beyond what can currently be
>> described with binding templates, as a more prescriptive but unambiguous
>> option to guarantee interoperability between greenfield implementations.
>> Publish a Candidate Recommendation, publicise a request for
>> implementations, and if there are sufficient implementations then proceed
>> to Proposed Recommendation.
>>
>> *Option 2*
>> Decide now that profiles must only constrain what is already possible
>> with binding templates in TD 1.1, discontinue the approach taken in WoT
>> Profiles 1.0, publish the current text as a Working Group Note and start
>> work on a Profiles 2.0 specification which takes a different approach.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Ben
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 13:39, Luca Barbato <luca.barbato@luminem.it>
> wrote:
>
>> On 29/04/24 12:03, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
>> > Hi Luca, Ben, Ege and all,
>> >
>> > Given the following:
>> >
>> > 1. It's the Golden Week this week and many of the Japanese
>> >     participants (including myself) can't join this discussion.
>>
>> Being an email brainstorming (more or less), I hope we won't need
>> immediate response from members, hopefully once you are back from the
>> Golden Week we'll have a good summary for everybody to discuss :)
>>   > 2. This discussion is getting very long and it seems to me it would be
>> >     difficult to solve the problem via email.
>> >
>> > 3. We've already started to discuss what to be handled by the WoT
>> Profile
>> >     specification during the Pofile calls.
>> >
>> > I strongly would suggest we talk about the topic here, What to do with
>> > WoT Profile 1.0", during the upcoming Profiles calls. Maybe it might
>> > make sense to have additional dedicated virtual f2f meeting for this
>> > topic also.
>>
>> I had few voice call on it and I'm trying to keep notes of everything
>> being said, email threads make my life simpler with summarizing, we can
>> continue a bit the discussion on the issues Ben opened or off-list in
>> case the noise is a bit too much.
>>
>> lu
>>
>