Meeting Time and Conference information
Meeting Time: 3rd Monday of each month at 1pm EST as needed (if there are no agenda items, the meeting is cancelled)
Zoom Link: https://zoom.us/j/353955907
Meeting ID: 353 955 907
One tap mobile +16699006833,,353955907#
US (San Jose) +16465588656,,353955907#
US (New York) Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833
US (San Jose) +1 646 558 8656
US (New York) 877 369 0926
US Toll-free 855 880 1246
US Toll-free +1 647 558 0588
Canada 855 703 8985
Canada Toll-free Meeting ID: 353 955 907
Jun 15, 2020: meeting 10am PDT
May 18, 2020: Meeting Minutes;
- Explore process and procedures for vetting 3rd party packages. This initially came out of the security working group as a need to vet 3rd party packages for security issues (see #1947). The community now has a larger interest in exploring it from a license perspective, size/performance impact, better alternative, as well as a security vetting. James Gregg has done research to explore options. James will lead the initial discussion (see https://github.com/jamesrgregg/1947-explore).
- Listen to Security WG recording (Password: 6U#=Q%?^) for context and more information.
- Currently being worked by James Gregg - next step is to find too to do PR review of any additions to go.mod file (see May 18 meeting notes)
- Explore how we can inform people of architectural decisions (especially the small ones vs ones done via ADR). Can we tag items in the project boards? If so, which ones and how? (comes from the Hanoi planning meetings)
- First topic to be explored on Jun 15th meeting
- How should we apply semantic versioning to modules? When do we update the minor and major versions of modules? (comes from the Hanoi planning meetings)
- PR Template for conventional commits is now in place for all repositories for all PRs but without TSC approval. It doesn’t appear to be affecting any problem. We need to finalize the shape of this and officially approve the template by the TSC.
- Extract of Device Service requirements to ADR legacy - what are all the pieces that need to be moved there?
- Per the Hanoi planning conference - we need to better define "bound checking" so that a design (and eventual implementation) can be brought forth to meet the requirements
- Currently considering limiting the number of operations that can be performed on a service (like a device service) over a period of time or setting the max request size (that lends to DoS attacks)
- Can the solution be more globally applied?
- Design metadata about the “gateway” or host platform (identity, location, …)