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

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

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:
* digital twin, where the corresponding physical objects can be described with SDF,
* SDF mapping of properties between several IoT SDOs' objects, and
* gateway interactions translating between IP and other non-IP transports.

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]> on behalf of Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 3 April 2024 at 14:59
To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[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]> 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]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide