[Asdf] Outstanding PRs for 1.1

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 10 March 2021 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: asdf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asdf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0DC73A146E for <asdf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:47:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FKFsWQvZ4ouy for <asdf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6A263A146A for <asdf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:47:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Dwfg06ZGMz105V; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:47:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 637091260.15864-7a41065f39e76698af2c95cebdfcb5ee
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:47:40 +0100
Message-Id: <EB8E2101-A32D-4516-A1B5-4EB6813C9F7D@tzi.org>
To: asdf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/asdf/nzbKaeZqO4pxw9jxjiI74yQtCk4>
Subject: [Asdf] Outstanding PRs for 1.1
X-BeenThere: asdf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A Semantic Description Format \(SDF\) for Things and their Interactions and Data" <asdf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/asdf>, <mailto:asdf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/asdf/>
List-Post: <mailto:asdf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asdf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asdf>, <mailto:asdf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:47:47 -0000

The SDF 1.1 consensus call is completed, but we still have three PRs that should go into 1.1 to be issued tomorrow as draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-04:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-asdf/SDF/pull/21 (#21):
This fixes some I-D nits and supplies the formal IANA considerations section that we’ll need to get early allocation on the media type application/sdf+json.
No changes to format.

https://github.com/ietf-wg-asdf/SDF/pull/24 (#24):
This makes the info block optional.
It is not intended as a change that impacts how we will handle SDF files going into OneDM and related processes.
It is a simplification that facilitates tools (like Thingmaker from last week’s hackathon) that build SDF files from components, not each of which will have an info block.
We recommend emitting a warning when an SDF validator tool does not find an info block.
(There is a comment on this PR that each entry of the info block should also be optional in the syntax; I haven’t implemented that change yet.)

https://github.com/ietf-wg-asdf/SDF/pull/25 (#25):
Marks scaleMinimum and scaleMaximum as SDF 1.0.
These qualities never were fully defined, even if we now have developed a definition (in #22), so removing these from 1.1 is not actually a change.
These qualities were not used so far in the models in the OneDM playground.
When discussing the way mapping/binding information interacts with an SDF model, we also found that these qualities do not quite work the way they should (which is not surprising as we hadn’t actually pressure-tested them).
I’ll talk more tomorrow about how the 1.next replacements might look like, but we should not leave the old qualities in 1.1 just to be removed in 1.next.

I would like to make sure we have in-room consensus to apply all three PRs tomorrow.  If you have an opinion on which direction #24 should go, knowing that before tomorrow’s meeting would help.

See you tomorrow at 1200Z!

Grüße, Carsten