Re: [core] Should we bury draft-ietf-core-interfaces?

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

I think we can check the procedural side (and the editorial implications on other drafts) once we know what we want.

Sent from mobile on the way to Prague

> On 21. Mar 2019, at 10:07, Christian Amsüss <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Carsten, hello CoRE,
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:52:18PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> At the interim call today we discussed whether core-interfaces, after already having split out all its salient parts into different documents, can now be buried.
>> 
>> If you agree, please say so in a reply; speak up particularly if you don’t agree.
>> We probably will make a decision in the Friday IETF104 CoRE meeting, so please reply till 2019-03-28.
> 
> I see some use of core-interface terminology in senml-etch. It isn't
> made explicit, but the use case description talks of batches of sensor
> data, and updates several resources at once. Without the background of
> core-interface batches, I think it's not immediately obvious how such a
> PATCH is used, and in particular at which resource it is targeted.
> (That can be addressed in senml-etch though, and doesn't need to keep
> core-interfaces around).
> 
> On the procedural side, core-interfaces is part of the WG charter, so
> abandoning this draft may need more than just WG consensus.
> 
> (Personally, I'll miss core-interfaces, as it shaped my introduction to
> CoAP, but let that be motivation to have a good t2trg-rest-iot
> document.)
> 
> Best regards
> Christian
> 
> -- 
> The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating
> its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your
> help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
>  -- Holden, Blade Runner