Re: [core] RobW comments on draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-04

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 19 February 2020 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C60212010F; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:30:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=lOPEZbp1; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=cEtWNQHl
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 SCh0zcxWJTUg; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:30:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 424C0120026; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:30:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8240; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1582126231; x=1583335831; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QR0Xg+q0khu5uMqH+48D5HPhz8RJhr/AdvXosz0MmAM=; b=lOPEZbp1J0dYMd/N6I3UTOIzW2mNjl8tGIy0zLKnP2oIiFd+RfEAxhyM Wy/o+8zRRqaaZ02RFBAsLf1ri1EISS0qxnzF1t6eBSSiYLCGLxBz6qhVK i+PQkpAcgH+JUbZ/y/bt43j5R1yWw2HgXgxtbii6D5QlL+fMYEWbvRwx6 0=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AO0RmVxQCf3IIBk8AVUq9f02LjNpsv++ubAcI9p?= =?us-ascii?q?oqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESXBdfA8/wRje3QvuigQmEG7Zub+FE6OJ1XH1?= =?us-ascii?q?5g640NmhA4RsuMCEn1NvnvOjYlHcBeU1lN9HCgOk8TE8H7NBXf?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C0BQB5U01e/4oNJK1mHAEBAQEBBwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BEQEEBAEBgXuBVFAFbFggBAsqCoNKQINGA4pxgl+YEYJSA1QJAQEBDAEBHw4?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAEBhEACF4FtJDgTAgMNAQEFAQEBAgEFBG2FNwyFZgEBAQECAQwGEREMAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?pDgELBAIBBgIOAwQBAQMCJgICAjAVCAgBAQQOBQgagwWCSgMOIAECDJFpkGc?= =?us-ascii?q?CgTmIYnWBMoJ/AQEFhTEYggwDBoEOKowkGoFBP4ERR4FOfj6CZAKBZxWCeTK?= =?us-ascii?q?CLI1qM4JGhhSZHgqCO4dPhU2JYIJJiBuQR5dokkwCBAIEBQIOAQEFgWkigVh?= =?us-ascii?q?wFRohgmxQGA2OHYNzilIBdIEpjFoBgQ8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,459,1574121600"; d="scan'208";a="637801225"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 19 Feb 2020 15:30:30 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 01JFUURO027200 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:30:30 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:30:29 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:30:28 -0500
Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:30:28 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=YgG0c8ZrmQt04ko0GxDVGXn+7IwiMsDh6Wzja0Y5Zfs2u9T+Q/I1Br1u0Su3B+pdZI76qZJEixcIFXWPZTiIqTaSEkJinOY4fZc8j85maa7Ygn4ff3sVEVfvTXWJi9UdBROYxAQt/kuA0yd9kLxfoGcHsfcEQDD829ZJF8kofdtXWT6A1df4MLi4tc2a8W8D2P2vSqB9ZBCGPnD2VORAcmuHRTJj/jmTOKYb9y9mHe7UzWve2KC0Uzj/3uqRkH29PIVq3ARiVemFQ1LUtfk6pbdjbaLGXHx5CiLDowidBII4jpPeGP89QTvxWadGnEsdj9kgJC0ZRQkvJFfaN7JpTQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=QR0Xg+q0khu5uMqH+48D5HPhz8RJhr/AdvXosz0MmAM=; b=Gzr8H2O2C4kT5Gzt8uDcuPctVBhRzSOnUSVnrraR0koXf4Y+8et3tp5xnjZf1L3t6VKA3hyt7nKrg9SBrQw5UmQvWC2vlXkAghkbB5LZYSTRWd8Gg9xmMmDQ5XEZEh/uKpX/OP18j8E+RfPRv924+u7PjaEL6qXU+EilcCzFULu/uy1/LDdw2n+R0SlGO3x2JeqCc81sC8LusNdO9HPAuXC4wTrIQSWx70ULiDk576NsDcjK6Gu4KT59qSD0nuyaSujn3qBd6PGLJ6AC+yBgt/u1iklikpOPJoh5htIg98x9XVt1f/hfGcn74hNUuCxmDdfa2jWG67fafBn+NdsMSw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=QR0Xg+q0khu5uMqH+48D5HPhz8RJhr/AdvXosz0MmAM=; b=cEtWNQHlqyYFGqmYUfJMS3G71xfjxhZpo/hYu/AI5ASyig8XH0YvWdVFuJIkUvngsY3OjNJIedFWeVKY6CH9MiRandFpLVsPa8dZ9cpSDg6eqh7IvbozlrSD2SzYdlcp6YmITRaN7dPbu3f9Sw49266I0yBsmaRDyiucFmDHEDQ=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.209) by MN2PR11MB3968.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.180.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2750.18; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:30:27 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b9ce:1058:5fa6:44a1]) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b9ce:1058:5fa6:44a1%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2729.032; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:30:27 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: "core-chairs@ietf.org" <core-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RobW comments on draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-04
Thread-Index: AdXlqZeHMIQG61iWSRmLAl4AWyIkfwBiupQAAAAhvGA=
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:30:27 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB43660638AF737F78786C406DB5100@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB4366F25989E1D4062BBFBA1AB5160@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <156DEE7A-BF0A-4644-B072-0D574D56BE3C@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <156DEE7A-BF0A-4644-B072-0D574D56BE3C@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rwilton@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.36]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 843eefa5-6550-4598-a766-08d7b550a58b
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3968:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB396810E7E5D9DC8BBFE9B120B5100@MN2PR11MB3968.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 0318501FAE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(346002)(396003)(136003)(199004)(189003)(81156014)(81166006)(8676002)(71200400001)(8936002)(33656002)(7696005)(86362001)(6916009)(316002)(966005)(54906003)(478600001)(76116006)(9686003)(55016002)(5660300002)(64756008)(52536014)(66446008)(186003)(26005)(2906002)(66946007)(4326008)(66476007)(66556008)(53546011)(6506007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3968; H:MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 5E74AeDzICZWeqe8KxzuTQaxG9TMr+0/aR4HOq3gbOMr3otWbyhYyVZqIOZo/Ad+o424Ck4Y1p5jDrE+oKo1q0uC4CwxzdxlVa2LUIErYWDuOdEI0yjd5XTK3c1dP2juBYl8/kFqcJWd2CueAWyRuw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 843eefa5-6550-4598-a766-08d7b550a58b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Feb 2020 15:30:27.4609 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: WFgCwy0u6EnPFT7DsFnr4wPLEaq9P7QmTwSuZ/7fBiWC/6KIl0k+z1vqjzDj11YpoRla86EbMCaa+XqPO4jH6w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3968
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/9LZwSrN07l-bwf71XChhrBkflls>
Subject: Re: [core] RobW comments on draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-04
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:30:34 -0000

Hi Carsten,

Please see inline ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
> Sent: 19 February 2020 14:55
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>
> Cc: core-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; core@ietf.org; draft-
> ietf-core-senml-more-units@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RobW comments on draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-04
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> sorry for not processing the comments in order of arrival.
> 
> > I’m providing some comments as an incoming Ops and Mgmt AD.
> >
> > I found this document well written but think that it may be helpful to
> highlight the protocol usage of secondary units earlier in the document,
> i.e. in the introduction.
> >
> > My understanding is that this document introduces both extra primary
> unit names, and also a new concept of secondary unit names, which I
> presume came about from deployment considerations.
> >
> > Comments:
> > 	• As per above, I think that it would be useful to add a comment in
> the introduction about how secondary units could be used.  E.g. may be
> extend
> >
> > “The document also defines a registry for secondary Unit names that
> >    cannot be in SenML's main registry as they are derived by linear
> >    transformation from units already in that registry.”
> >
> > with the sentence “Although SenML version 10 [RFC8428] does not allow
> for the direct use of secondary units, they are planned to be supported
> via the use of SenML protocol extensions, such as [I-D.bormann-core-senml-
> versions].”
> 
> Very nice addition.  Slightly edited now in
> https://github.com/core-wg/senml-more-
> units/commit/344430b74f738213a541f087baede716c1afed30
> 
[RW]
Looks good.


> > 	• The introduction introduces the term “primary Unit names”, but
> then doesn’t refer to them using this term in the rest of the document.
> It might be helpful if the title of section 2 was changed from “New Units”
> to “New primary Units”, and the description could be changed from “…
> assign new units …” to “… assign new primary unit names …”.

> 
> I’m with you here except for the instruction to IANA: That’s not agreeing
> with the name of that registry, and I wasn’t trying to change that.

[RW]
Okay.  I see that you have updated the title for this section, so I think that should make it clear.

> 
> > 	• My reading of the “3. Rationale” section is that it relates to the
> new primary units, rather than secondary units.  The structure of the
> document might be clearer if this was made a subsection of the section 2
> rather than its own top level section.
> 
> I made it a Section 2.1.  (OCD would require making it section 2.2, but
> then we’d need glue to properly anchor section 2.1.)
[RW] 
Okay.

> 
> > 	• I would suggest renaming the section 4 title from “New Registry”
> to “New Registry for Secondary Units”.
> 
> Yes!
[RW] 
Thanks.

> 
> > 	• Regarding section 4 on secondary units:
> > 		• I observe that these are not using a generalized mechanism
> of using SI prefixes for scaling, but propose a separate custom mapping
> instead, which in some cases are just making use of SI prefixes.  I
> presume that there is a good reason for not wanting to generically use SI
> prefixes, perhaps for a bit more homogeneity in the scaling factors, but
> it might be helpful for the document to explain the rationale behind this.
> 
> Actually, I’d like to push back a bit on this, as SI prefixes are not an
> obvious way to handle many of the secondary units that are being proposed
> by other SDOs.
> 
> (Defining a scheme for parsing unit names would have been a possibility,
> but with ambiguities like m (milli) vs. m (meter) this is just too hard to
> get right.)
[RW] 
Okay, I don't feel too strongly on this.

But even the two paragraphs that you have written above help clarify why the current approach has been taken, and would potentially help other reader understand the rationale behind the secondary units.

> 
> > 		• I note that you have similar units but with different
> scaling factors (e.g. KiB, GB, Mbit/s, MB/s).  Do we anticipate other
> scaling factors of these units?  E.g. if MB was requested as a secondary
> unit, then would that be added?
> 
> Yes.  The list that is in this draft is somewhat incidental: It is what is
> needed to allow LWM2M/IPSO to use the SenML registry.  And they happened
> not to have MB (which today rarely is useful).
[RW] 
Okay.  Thanks, I wasn't aware of the history.


> 
> > Would it make sense to define any more of these common scaling factors
> now?
> 
> Yes, we could go for some proactive registration, e.g. where we have one
> SI range prefix, we could register all reasonable ones.
> 
> > 		• I also note that the names of some of the secondary units
> would overlap with SI prefixes (e.g. “min”) for minutes.  This is okay,
> but would likely be an annoyance if it was ever desirable to use SI
> prefixes in a generic way.
> 
> Yes, so it is better to have a designated expert look at each
> registration.
[RW] 
Okay.

> 
> > 		• I wasn’t sure whether “h” is really a great shorthand for
> hour, I would have gone for “hr” instead, but perhaps this is already
> widely used elsewhere?
> 
> It is the standard one, as in km/h etc.
> (See Section 6.5.6 of ISO 80000-1:2009, which apparently is not online.)
[RW] 
Ah, yes.  It seems obvious when I see it like that.

> 
> The structural/heading changes I took from this are in:
> https://github.com/core-wg/senml-more-
> units/commit/08c3edc91883569cb1f48bc216c3049d77ea962e
[RW] 
Looks good.

> 
> We could additionally go ahead with some more proactive registration.
> I propose to wait for the telechat with deciding whether we should.
[RW] 
That makes sense.

Thanks for the doc updates.
Rob


> 
> Grüße, Carsten