Re: [core] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-02.txt> (Additional Units for SenML) to Proposed Standard

Carsten Bormann <> Tue, 22 October 2019 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB8212090A; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ce4s7VfFJPBn; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69EA41208E2; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46yJXx4GjczyY2; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 18:16:33 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 18:16:33 +0200
Cc:, IETF <>, Cullen Jennings <>,, core <>,
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 593453785.36585-1f362647d4ab4c2d7104dc5ddc092402
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Pete Resnick <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-02.txt> (Additional Units for SenML) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:16:45 -0000

On Oct 22, 2019, at 18:07, Pete Resnick <> wrote:
>> SenML is now in a position to play a centerpiece in the harmonized IoT data landscape.  Not going for this draft is likely to thwart this opportunity.
> Sounds like a fine thing to aim for. Again, that says to me to add these to the existing registry.

Right now the primary registry generally provides the preferred unit to encode some quantity.
By mixing in the secondary registrations into the same registry, this mild coercion would be diluted outside the use cases that require them, and all of SenML would stand in the cesspool of derivative units we now find in other IoT standards.

(Historically, if we had known we wanted to go this way, we would have chucked some of the units marked with an asterisk to the secondary registry.  But that horse has left the barn already.)

Grüße, Carsten