Re: [Asdf] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-asdf-00-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Niklas!

Everything below looks good to me.  I like your additional polish noted below.

Consider my feedback resolved.

Regards,
Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niklas Widell <niklas.widell@ericsson.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 4:16 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: asdf@ietf.org; asdf-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Asdf] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-asdf-00-03:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> On 2020-10-07, 21:02, "ASDF on behalf of Roman Danyliw via Datatracker"
> <asdf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     To revisit my two items of feedback from the initial charter review:
> 
>     ** What is "Thing Interaction and Data Modelling"?
>     ** What is currently outstanding to make SDF “IETF quality”?  I worry that
> the
>     text currently reads as “start with SDF and make it better”.
> 
>     Here is text that could address those:
> 
>     OLD
>     The objective of the ASDF working group is to develop SDF to an IETF-quality
>     specification for Thing Interaction and Data Modelling, working with experts
>     from OneDM and its contributing organizations.  On the way to that
>     specification, further functionality requirements will be addressed that
> emerge
>     in the usage of SDF for model harmonization.
> 
>     The ASDF WG will work closely with the CBOR WG, home of the CDDL
> specification.
> 
>     NEW
> 
>     The objective of the ASDF working group is to develop a standards-track SDF
>     specification for thing interaction and data modelling. In the course of
>     developing this specification, further functional requirements that emerge
> from
>     the model harmonization will be addressed.
> 
>     The ASDF WG will work with the experts from OneDM and its contributing
>     organization.  In the IETF, it will work closely with the CBOR WG, home of the
>     CDDL specification.
> 
> I think these changes look good
> 
> PR here: https://github.com/one-data-model/ietf108/pull/10/files
> (not merged to master yet if Carsten or Michael has comments, and not in DT)
> 
> Minor diffs:
> s/course/process/
> s/organization/organizations/ - OneDM is the liaison activity of the
> participating organizations (OCF, OMA SpecWorks etc), so it is right to use
> plural here
> 
> 
>     Explanation of the edit proposed edit:
> 
>     -- s/an IETF-quality specification/standards-track specification/ which speaks
>     more concretely the quality bar expected
> 
>     -- s/Thing Interaction and Data Modelling/thing interaction and data
> modeling/
>     because none of these are proper nouns.  I got confused in the initial charter
>     review because the capitalization made it read like this was a formal name
> for
>     something (proper noun)
> 
> Agree on Interaction and Data Modelling, on the fence with "Thing/thing" since
> an IoT Thing is a common concept. But no big deal, so it is "thing" in proposed -
> 04.
> 
>     -- s/working with experts from OneDM and its contributing organizations//
>     because this paragraph should describe what the WG is doing.  The reference
> to
>     OneDM and contribution organization should be noted with the rest of
> partners
>     (in the next paragraph).
> 
> Good point, moved
> 
>     -- s/On the way to that specification, further functionality requirements will
>     be addressed that emerge in the usage of SDF for model harmonization/ In
> the
>     course of developing this specification, further functional requirements that
>     emerge from the model harmonization will be addressed/ to make clear the
> source
>     of the functional requirements and why they can’t be articulated now.  If the
>     basis of how any deconfliction will be done can be noted, this would be
> helpful
>     (e.g., minimize disruptive change across the existing models in the ecosystem
>     now)
> 
> Good point wrt deconfliction (interesting word, had to check exact meaning),
> the idea is to follow normal IETF process (rough consensus, objections handled
> etc.). From OneDM perspective, the toolchains for model translation have been
> successfully updated to reflect the development of SDF so far, so as Carsten
> noted in the BoF, so no special treatment ought to be needed.
> 
> 
>     --
>     ASDF mailing list
>     ASDF@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asdf