Re: [core] WG consensus call for draft-ietf-core-senml amendments

Hi,

I have previously implemented senml. I am fine with the amendments and 
would like to see the draft move forward.

--Mohit

On 05/15/2018 01:09 PM, Jaime Jiménez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> there seems to be consensus on the changes to the Times values among 
> those who participated in the discussion.
> Just to be sure lets have a last consensus call on this, allowing for 
> any other concerns to be voiced, ending by *EOB Thursday 17th*.
>
> Ciao!
> - - Jaime Jiménez
>
>> On 13 May 2018, at 21.06, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com 
>> <mailto:ari.keranen@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 13 May 2018, at 0.02, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm 
>>> <mailto:aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ari,
>>>
>>> On 11 May 2018, at 20:05, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com 
>>> <mailto:ari.keranen@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> While addressing the IESG review comments regarding the use of time 
>>>> in SenML we came up with a simple way to enable SenML Records to 
>>>> express also relative times in the future that would have minimal 
>>>> impact to any existing use of SenML. We could use the following 
>>>> definition:
>>>>
>>>>  Values greater than or equal to 2**28 represent an absolute time 
>>>> relative to the Unix epoch. Values less than 2**28 represent time 
>>>> relative to the current time.
>>>>
>>>> That is, instead of only values less than zero, also values less 
>>>> than 2**28 (268,435,456) would be used to express relative time. 
>>>> Negative values and zero are still times in past and "now" 
>>>> respectively, as before. Time values from zero to 2**28 would be 
>>>> relative times in the future.
>>>>
>>>> The only change this causes in the current use of SenML is that the 
>>>> smallest absolute time expressible in SenML becomes 1978-07-04 
>>>> 21:24:16 UTC instead of 1970-01-01 00:00 UTC. The absolute times 
>>>> after 1978 are still exactly the same ("Seconds after Unix epoch"). 
>>>> We are not aware of any deployments with SenML data between 1970 
>>>> and 1978 that would be impacted negatively by this.
>>>>
>>>> For details, see:
>>>> https://github.com/core-wg/senml-spec/pull/129/files
>>>>
>>>> Would anyone have concerns about including this change in SenML 
>>>> before publication?
>>>>
>>>> Since we are already very late in the process and we need to get 
>>>> SenML published as RFC very soon, we would also need to agree on 
>>>> this very soon.
>>>
>>> No objections from me personally, but please double check with the WG.
>>
>> Great!
>>
>> I saw that Christian, Michael, and Klaus from the WG already +1'd 
>> (thanks guys!). If there are no concerns raised, we could submit a 
>> new version with this change included, e.g., at the end of the work week.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ari
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> core mailing list
>> core@ietf.org <mailto:core@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core