Proposed Resolution: Publish the Web Thing Protocol Use Cases & Requirements report

[benfrancis]

A call for use cases and requirements on the proposed Web Thing Protocol has been open since July 2020 (a little longer than planned!).

Thank you to everyone who has provided their input and support so far, both on GitHub and during our face to face meeting at TPAC.

After a long delay since our last meeting at TPAC last year I am proposing a resolution to publish the Use Cases & Requirements document and start work on the main deliverables of the group.

I suggest that this requirements report be a living document which may continue to evolve alongside the specifications that implement it, so if you have any further use cases or requirements to propose then please be reassured that they may be included in the future.

Given the amount of time that has already elapsed for comment, unless there are any objections within seven days I plan to publish the report in its current state.

It would also be helpful if members could respond to this GitHub issue (or the email on the mailing list) with their support for publishing the report, since you may have noticed W3C staff have proposed closing down this group due to inactivity. Any signs of activity or support will help to justify the continued existence of this group.

[zolkis]

A consistent set of use cases and requirements, centered around compatibility and seamless integration (which is the purpose of APIs).

A nice addition would be to explain the requirement for the single-ness of the WS endpoint in 5.2.1 and how is that tied to identification (authorization, etc).

[egekorkan]

We definitely need this kind of protocol to have support for all WoT operations and websockets is a very good candidate. I need to still review the report but I support the CG activity.

[benfrancis]

Thank you very much for the feedback.

@zolkis wrote:

A nice addition would be to explain the requirement for the single-ness of the WS endpoint in 5.2.1 and how is that tied to identification (authorization, etc).

I've added some brief examples as explanation in #21. GitHub wouldn't let me request a review from you but let me know if you think it needs expanding further. We should discuss in more detail how this would actually work when writing the specification itself.

[benfrancis]

Please note that I have now marked the report as published in #22 and submitted a request for it to published at a W3C URL here
as per the Community Group Report Requirements.

CC @ashimura

[benfrancis]

I'm pleased to say that after a short delay waiting for W3C Staff review, the Web Thing Protocol Use Cases & Requirements report has been published at https://www.w3.org/community/reports/web-thing-protocol/CG-FINAL-web-thing-protocol-requirements-20231101/

Thank you to everyone who contributed to and provided feedback on this first deliverable.

Now that we have published our use cases and requirements we can start work on our main deliverables, which are:

• Web Thing Protocol - WebSocket Sub-protocol
• Web Thing Protocol - HTTP Sub-protocol

Please stay tuned for next steps!

Ben