Dan: WoT group blocked on our lack of feedback...

Tess: why do they think they are blocked

Dan: I will ask the group chairs why they think they are blocked

David: I wrote a long comment on 355. There is related Mozilla work. They are building a mozilla web of things implementation. They are half aligned with the WoT specs. I wrote a comment that called out the big issues. MNOT also made a comment in the issue - they are building something that is very complicated and not likely to lead to interop. The fundamental disagreement is that there are people in the group that want to build a w3c web of things specs that can interop with the existing IoT devices out there - so it has to be able to map existing device capabilities (e.g. turning lights on and off) so you need a full description language. The alternative that Mozilla is pushing : here is the rest protocol, here is the web sockets protocol so if you want to be a web thing you need to speak these protocols. MNOT is sort of coming from same perspective.

Sangwhan: I took a quick look at this and had some issues trying to figure out what they are trying to do - seems like an infrastructural framework. There is very little scope defined here.

Dan: We have some experience with the web of things (mozilla) framework...

Sangwhan: scope is an issue and also security model - and CORS-like functionality to restrict access....

Peter: they have a deadline (today)... Don't know if that charter is being renewed or what...

David: there was a workshop a month or 2 ago - one of the goals was development of a new charter...

Yves: they asked about moving to CR, w3m say it would be better to get validation from the TAG first...

Dan: there are some issues that have been raised by sangwhan and david...

Yves: should we ask about the consensus state of the specification, considering David's feedback...

Dan: suggest Yves and I get on a call thursday to discuss more and come back to group next week with an output.

• Badging API - @hober, @torgo

Tess: we talked about this last week and I took an action to search TPAC minutes and write up some comments. Not done yet.

[finding breakout time to discuss..., Tess & Alice]

• A toast UI element - @hober, @kenchris

Tess: lots of discussions since last week... Giant chunk

David: 2 issues on whatwg HTML 4696 and 4697 that are substantive. A bunch of the discussion has moved there.

Tess: this seems to be a moving target. I'd like to see the HTML issues progress to consensus.

Alice: TAG reviews for those 2 things?

Tess: personally no - i think we should personally weigh in on those issues.

Peter: I think we should be keeping an eye on those discussions...

Tess: maybe we should let this one cool off for a couple weeks..

Ken: I looked at the scripting API. I added a few comments. They have responded to some of my comments. Issues with complexity of properties... There are a lot of things to understand.

Dan: my suggestion is to focus on the API (also this was what Yves suggested)

David: my impression was that the API is getting dropped?

Ken: i was told there at 9 implementations...

David: I also have info from Ben [Francis of Mozilla] which I've given it in one of these issues [355]

Dan: suggest scheduling a breakout on this for later in the week with goal of closing it off.

Peter: do we need more feedback?

Ken: [difficult to understand some of the API choices...]

David: they want to interface with tons of devices that are already out there. they have a mechanism for mapping actions onto existing things.

Ken: you need to write your own adapters.

[breakout will be organised on slack

Dan: We had a call last week, Dan, David, Kenneth, Yves, Hadley?, and Web of Things folks. They were under misimpression that we were going to do a security and privacy review for them. They took our feedback on explainer (being more user-centric, being for consumption of broader audience than the TAG).

Dan: Discussed JSON-LD issue; David said he'd provide some additional explanation.

David: I did that.

Dan: Other issue was about privacy and security self-review. Weren't actions out of that.

Dan: Other thing underlying discussion was the sense that they needed TAG blessing to move forward; I said it doesn't work like that.

Dan: My sense: we should monitor responses to things like David's comment, and then close these issues fairly quickly. Reaching the limit of return on investment on this issue.

David: Seems reasonable.