Re: [Asdf] Roman Danyliw's Block on charter-ietf-asdf-01-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

Thanks for all of the follow-up to date.

From: Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 4:26 AM
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>; Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Asdf] Roman Danyliw's Block on charter-ietf-asdf-01-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Roman, all,

Given Roman’s comment about the scope (which I believe is more about how the text is formulated and can be fixed with editorial changes), what do you think of this change:

OLD:
The ASDF WG will develop these extensions in consultation with experts from OneDM and its contributing organizations to extend SDF to cover aspects such as digital twin, mapping to other IoT SDOs, and gateway interactions translating between IP and other transports.

NEW:
The ASDF WG will develop these extensions in consultation with experts from OneDM and its contributing organizations to extend SDF to cover aspects such as:

[Roman] Thanks for this text refinement.  Regarding scope, I still don’t understand the scope to sufficiently answer “when the WG is done”?   Is the current text establishing an open-ended/maintenance style WG where the IETF will service OneDM, or are there one or two existing artifacts that service each of the bullet points?

* digital twin, where the corresponding physical objects can be described with SDF,

[Roman] Digital twins for physical objects strikes me as a huge topic.  Is there a single, umbrella document to publish or are the “digital twin models” of any objects potentially going to be run through this WG?  I see there is a draft-lee-asdf-digital-twin-01 in related documents.  From Michael’s feedback below, it looks like this might be one document.  Could the scope be clarified as:

==[ rough proposal ]==
# Program of Work

** Proposed standard document extending SDF to provide data model properties to support for digital twin models for physical objects
==[ rough proposal ]==

* SDF mapping of properties between several IoT SDOs' objects, and

[Roman] Is this about extending SDF to provide model elements to allow SDF to map to objects?  As in, there is one document to make; or there is a family of documents to make?  If the former, what are the first two SDF-to-other-SDOs-IoT makings to mappings to make?  I observe no milestones to scope the class of activity.  If only one or two SDOs can be named now, why can’t this more narrow scope be defined to demonstrate the need for long-term maintenance/

If the latter, could the scope be clarified as:

==[ rough proposal ]==
…
** Proposed standard document extending SDF with data model properties that allow the mapping between the formats of different IoT SDO objects
==[ rough proposal ]==

I see that milestones are intended to be discussed during an April interim.  Has that meeting happened and what was the result of that discussion?

* gateway interactions translating between IP and other non-IP transports.

[Roman] Is there one document to produce here or a collection of mappings IP-to-other-transport mappings?

[Roman] Assuming this is a protocol, the charter doesn’t contain enough words for me to even understand who the end-points of the protocol would be, let alone what a gateway is in this context and the properties of the desired protocol.  Is draft-brinckman-nipc-00 a proposal for this work?

Thanks,
Roman




This is my attempt at putting Michael’s explanation below to text. For the third point I really didn’t find any more text would help. Roman, given the context Eliot and Michael have given you, is there anything there that would help? Michael, Eliot and working group: what do you think?

Francesca

From: ASDF <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 3 April 2024 at 14:59
To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Asdf] Roman Danyliw's Block on charter-ietf-asdf-01-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> -- Is _any_ "digital twin" in scope?

Any digital twin whose physical twin can be described with SDF.
The digital twin people have asked to have some additional
attributes/relationships between sdfObjects, I think, like "containedIn",
"onTopOf" and the like.

    > -- ASDF will now support _any_
    > extensions from "other IoT SDOs"?

It says, "mapping to other IoT SDOs"
in SDF terms, this means that we can include the fact that in IoT SDO X, a
lightbulb is "on" when the value is 100(%), while in another IoT SDO Y, it
is "on" when the value is 255.  This information presently has to be hard
coded into the translators.

    > -- Is "gateway interactions
    > translating between IP and other transports" is this a data model issue
    > or a protocol?

We are looking at adopting a protocol that runs over IP (to a gateway), which
references devices which are not reachable by IP (such as BTLE, legacy
Zigbee, ...) and refers to them by sdfRef.  There was a really nice analogy
to SMTP in the mailing list and the gateways to other formats of old.

    > Is it possible to narrow the scope at all?

I guess we have to add more words, and I'm not sure what words to add.

    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > COMMENT:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    > There are no milestones

That's the subject of the virtual interim meeting at the end of April.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide