Add meeting minutes for WoT TD Calls on Feb 11-12, 2026

minutes/td/2026021112/Readme.md

@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+# WoT TD Calls
+
+from https://pad.w3.org/p/2026-02-1112-wot-td-minutes
+
+## Slot 1 - 11 February 2026
+
+### Meeting Information
+
+#### Attendees
+
+- Ege Korkan
+- Kunihiko Toumura
+- Cristiano Aguzzi
+- Mahda Noura
+- Tomoaki Mizushima
+- Michael Koster
+
+- Scribe: Ege
+- Regrets: Marc, Daniel
+
+#### Agenda
+
+### Minutes
+
+#### Minutes Review
+
+Ege: Post-processing with AI
+
+https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1265/changes  
+Ege: Anything to change?  
+... Hearing none, merging.
+
+#### Common Definitions
+
+Ege: We have the proposals folder, but this is not a proposal—it is the design we agreed on. Any remarks?  
+Cris: We can add a badge to say it is accepted.  
+Ege: Shows https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/main/proposals/project-management/README.md.  
+Cris: Yes, like this.
+
+Ege: I have closed some issues: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aclosed%20label%3A%22common%20definitions%22%20sort%3Aupdated-desc
+
+Ege: In https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/2176, I created two issues since there are two features in there.
+
+... Similarly for https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/2153, I created three new issues.
+
+Ege: What do you see as critical before moving to the Editor’s Draft?
+
+Mahda: Does it apply to the binding registry too?
+
+Ege: No, just this. Are these features improvements, or are they critical?
+
+Ege: There is some documentation, like ZeroMQ.
+
+Mahda: There is also 2102.
+
+Ege: OK, that is outdated. Closing.
+
+Cris: Yes, I remember.
+
+Ege: 2104 is just an example of an interesting use case.
+
+Cris: It is best as an example of two mechanisms combined.
+
+Mahda: I agree.
+
+Ege: (Writing in the issue comment.)
+
+Ege: Now issue 2177. We can do it.
+
+Cris: It is nice, but it would be too premature. If Ben’s proposal goes forward, this would not make sense. It is a small improvement from my point of view.
+
+Ege: I agree. It can wait.
+
+Ege: Issue 2180. Should we fix this?
+
+Cris: I would address this problem.
+
+Mahda: This is critical from my point of view too. It would hinder trust.
+
+Ege: OK, I will address this first.
+
+Ege: Issue 2182 now. The resource should be `href`.
+
+Cris: It is not a syntax issue, it is a philosophical one. In MQTT it doesn’t work very well. We should discuss whether we should drop the “everything is a URI” concept.
+
+Ege: So no big impact on the current proposal.
+
+Cris: Yes. This is relevant for message-oriented protocols.
+
+Ege: Now to issue 2183.
+
+Ege: I think it can be layered on top of what we have.
+
+Cris: It can be added on top. It is a bit problematic as it adds yet another templating mechanism. It can be done with defaults of the bindings—for example, HTTP binding says that resources are formed like that.
+
+Ege: OK. The only remaining issue is 2186. We are not addressing this at all.
+
+Cris: I feel this is a difficult issue to solve. This is a non-standard way of doing something. It is security bootstrapping that is not handled in the TD itself.
+
+Ege: Also, OpenAPI does not mention it.
+
+Cris: It is like obtaining a username and password.
+
+Ege: I will close the issue and reply to the other one.
+
+---
+
+## Slot 2 - 12 February 2026
+
+### Meeting Information
+
+#### Attendees
+
+- Ege Korkan
+- Michael Koster
+- Erich Barnstedt
+- Kunihiko Toumura
+- Tomoaki Mizushima
+- Cristiano Aguzzi
+
+#### Scribe
+
+- Michael Koster
+
+#### Agenda
+
+### Minutes
+
+#### Arch spec assertions
+
+##### PR #2187 – event-related assertion
+
+... Are there any objections to merging?  
+... Merged #2151.
+
+##### Binding Registry PR #55 – templates
+
+Ege: Main changes are in `index.html` as shown last week.  
+... Any objections to merging?  
+... Merged #55.
+