IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Asdf] Re: adoption of Digital Twin and sdf Non-Afforance drafts -- object by 2025-07-28

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 12 July 2025 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: asdf@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: asdf@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E864352D73 for <asdf@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jul 2025 12:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tzi.org
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gSV_ARQZsT8c for <asdf@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jul 2025 12:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C186C4352D6E for <asdf@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jul 2025 12:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=tzi.org; s=2019; t=1752347435; bh=Ei+RkJNjJQs/csGfg8N/wCzieWb+8VdoJWUXLd0WAmY=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=CQWo0K+tKadgWN5xDmX97rxkWbka1qc8gy4bE4l3JA2geDDHrIA82U6LwyYfO/6uo MXiPiy0OooI+83TnIBKXzOPAyw1GOxkINP7FoBDaRiAxSmOQvPgWQFeLqX64NY0NmC 9mcRRPFQdZZT1gSRYEnbmCMBgU5bDBeNepnXrBcfhlMpsxgINW8IOeTICIUOgPARCx Awg0lbZPcr8ne0OLlnklQzzBjqF7apE2NxeI4KZ13imhfbKaqeGrWnAMWPP+LxxW4h 5HUgOASSYF/XL8QN7kv9vfn5EKFgKxaR9Sw/ASkHDDxX8/+o6LByvRptriCzBqkymR LqK1DBVP8rXfA==
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5dc5df6f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.197.223.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4bfdT75JyjzDCd8; Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:10:35 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <24233.1752347061@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:10:25 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9C0EFBEB-A985-43C3-8231-ABF7F848B421@tzi.org>
References: <5445.1752016876@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <24233.1752347061@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.600.51.1.1)
Message-ID-Hash: UCXYZTOYV24HH3NQWTJOCXM73NVCCEDH
X-Message-ID-Hash: UCXYZTOYV24HH3NQWTJOCXM73NVCCEDH
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: asdf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Asdf] Re: adoption of Digital Twin and sdf Non-Afforance drafts -- object by 2025-07-28
List-Id: "A Semantic Description Format (SDF) for Things and their Interactions and Data" <asdf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/asdf/QKb2dEd0Zxk_ZfMDZjsUADbdKo4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/asdf>
List-Help: <mailto:asdf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:asdf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asdf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:asdf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:asdf-leave@ietf.org>

On Jul 12, 2025, at 21:04, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> I thought that there was also a dependancy upon draft-bormann-asdf-instance-information-03.
> But, I don't see that.   Jan has been active lately, so I feel encouraged
> that we might have enough people cycles to progress that.

Hi Michael,

there is no dependency, just very different approaches.
I’m sure the drafts can be aligned at some point, but -instance-information has a different approach to separating class information from instance information, and we need to discuss whether that is the right approach.
We sure can do this during the adoption calls of the other documents.

Jan and I plan to submit another revision of the -instance-information draft on Sunday next week (when the I-D repository reopens).
But the current revision should already be indicative of the direction this draft takes.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status