[core] New units for SenML

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 01 March 2019 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 E9E53129508 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:33:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 6rz2GlOIRUFF for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:33:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CE58126C7E for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:33:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost2.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.200.7]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x217Xemq017722 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:33:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54A6C2FE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.194.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 449h443pNTz1Bp8; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:33:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:33:37 +0100
Message-Id: <F5A90374-C1F5-48F8-8CCB-FB2E4ACC9B2E@tzi.org>
To: core <core@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/NXGlqTyDGnguyik_YkL2RY6_Gv4>
Subject: [core] New units for SenML
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: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 07:33:52 -0000

SenML (RFC 8428) has been a bit of a success story for this WG, at least (but not only) with respect to pickup by other SDO.  While we are filling gaps in the specification itself (fetch/(i)patch, data-ct), another item receives attention: SenML’s unit registry, which can be useful for other SDOs even beyond the direct use of the SenML data format.

In this context, a few units popped up that are somewhat in style with the Celsius exception that RFC 8428 provides.  Instead of just having them registered silently, maybe it is good to have some attention for them here in the WG.  To that end, based on input from OMA (but all mistakes are mine), I have written a draft:

Name:		draft-bormann-senml-more-units
Revision:	00
Title:		Additional Units for SenML
Document date:	2019-02-27
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		4
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bormann-senml-more-units/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-senml-more-units-00

Abstract:
  The Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) media type supports the
  indication of units for a quantity represented.  This short document
  registers a number of additional unit names in the IANA registry for
  Units in SenML.

Discussing physical quantities and their units may be not be the CoRE WG’s center of gravity, but if you care about the integrity of SenML, please have a look into this short draft.  The IANA policies allow us to go ahead with registration before this is an RFC (even before any working group adoption!), which would fit well with OMA timelines, so some feedback from the WG now would help getting that right.

Sorry for forgetting the WG name in the draft name and going directly to the name senml — news of a new SenML WG are greatly exaggerated :-)

Grüße, Carsten