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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

This is one of the oldest drafts still on the roster (created Jan 2012, adopted Jun 2013.):

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-interfaces-14

We split off dynlink from that a while ago and now think dynlink will be completed quite soon (a further split of dynlink was contemplated, but a clear separation is now done within the single document).

The parts of core-interfaces that remain have been picked up e.g. by OCF, but in a slightly different way.  As far as we are aware, the original core-interfaces version is not implemented.  Nor would we recommend to implement them exactly as specified.

The most important face value, defining the if= link target attribute, already is done in Section 3.2 of RFC 6690:  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6690#section-3.2
That registry is in very active use by other SDOs.
Core-interfaces intends to add specific values to that registry, but, again, these are not in actual use.
A description of what collections can do maybe can be transferred to the T2TRG “RESTful IoT” draft, or a future, more detailed companion document of that.

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.

Grüße, Carsten