Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reduce intrinsic protocol level redundancy #1248

Open
relu91 opened this issue Oct 13, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Reduce intrinsic protocol level redundancy #1248

relu91 opened this issue Oct 13, 2021 · 4 comments
Labels
Defer to TD 2.0 Has Use Case Potential The use case can be extracted and explained

Comments

@relu91
Copy link
Member

relu91 commented Oct 13, 2021

As I have been requested to do during this F2F I'm creating issues related to my presentation about Thing Description redundancies.

In this issue, I want to focus on intrinsic protocol level redundancy (slide 7). In short, certain IoT protocols require common configuration parameters that are usually shared across all Web Thing form instances. This creates longer TDs and opens the door to copy&paste errors. This is not the first time that this issue pop up in fact we already have a good list of issues that somehow touch this same aspect:

In the end, what is really missing is a global space to factor out protocol configuration and refer to those configurations in affordances only if needed. Sadly, this of course we'll make TDs more complex to read/understand.

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

I will use this issue as the umbrella for the initial connection discussion. @relu91 could you update the list with every issue listed at w3c/wot#1200. That way, people who stumble upon this issue have an easier life. If you are fine with it of course.

Everyone else, please refrain from commenting on this issue with ideas at this stage as multiple issues are already quite long.

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

egekorkan commented Jul 24, 2024

(This comment will be edited. If you are joining the calls, please mention your opinion there to not clutter this issue. Each major point will be opened as an issue)

A summary of the discussions in the linked issues:

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

egekorkan commented Jul 31, 2024

I am done with the previous comment and will present the findings in the TD call today. For all points of discussion, there are multiple proposals that I put into this hackmd for now: https://hackmd.io/@egekorkan/r1lXdjwtA

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

In today's meeting, opinions on the past proposals were collected:

  • Daniel: The simple case with one base and one protocol (and just HTTP), should not require complex forms or uri arithmetics. (+1 from Cris)
  • Cris: These proposals are from a time where we wanted to be backwards compatible. Now we do not have the limitations and we should not think in that way.
  • Cris: Proposal 4 is not good due to ordering problem.
  • Cris: Proposal 5 mixed with 1 seems like a good direction.
  • Luca: Security are connections, we can abuse that for TD 1.1
  • Luca: Security and Connection can be put together but we should check compositionality
  • Luca: Binding the base with connection is good but we can have a base without the connection.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Defer to TD 2.0 Has Use Case Potential The use case can be extracted and explained
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants