Re: [core] 🔔 CoRE Working Group Adoption call for draft-bormann-senml-more-units-03

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jaime,

I’m going on vacation on Sep 4, so sticking with the usual 1-week WGA call (instead of two weeks, despite the holiday period) might allow us to go forward faster.

To the WGA call itself:  

I’m also in favor of moving this to a WG document and then completing the work in an expedient way.

One question that does come up on the hallway is how IETF suddenly became the world authority on measurement units.  The answer is that this is not the intention.  Units are made by other entities (e.g., ISO and IEC in ISO/IEC 80000, IEEE in IEEE 1459, etc.).  The idea of the SenML units registry is to have an agreed ASCII name for a unit that is relevant to IoT and can be used in SenML and other interoperability specifications.  It turns out that doing this once in a central place is beneficial to semantic interoperability in the IoT.  In the SenML work, we found that other attempts at defining such registries are very useful as input (e.g., UCUM), but do not directly fulfill the specific requirements that SenML and other interoperability standards have.  Since, it also has turned out that SenML and other standards in this space have different requirements on the use of legacy unit identifiers, while still able to share a namespace in an unambiguous way.  Hence the update that is now being proposed.

Grüße, Carsten


> On Aug 21, 2019, at 10:25, Jaime Jiménez <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Forgot to add that the call will last a couple of weeks and will end the 
> 4th of September.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:22:34AM +0300, Jaime Jiménez wrote:
>> Dear Core WG,
>> 
>> We would like to start the call for adoption on
>> draft-bormann-senml-more-units-03.
>>> From the minutes I see there was interest in the room during IETF 105.
>> 
>> The draft registers some additional basic unit types for SenML (e.g.
>> Byte, etc). It also proposes a secondary registry of derived units 
>> (e.g. milisecond, minute, etc)  with different scales and
>> offset that better adjust to their "common uses".
>> 
>> At a general level the need for this secondary registry has been
>> discussed in other SDOs and they too found it would be useful to have.
>> In order to encourage interoperability the main unit registry would be
>> more restricted.
>> 
>> BR,
>> -- Jaime Jiménez
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> core mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
> 
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
> 
>