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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

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