Re: [core] draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-00

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 16, 2019, at 10:53, Jaime Jiménez <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Found few other nits:
> 
> The “kvar" entry is repeated twice.

Fixed in editor’s copy.

> The "vars" entry is not in the IANA SenML registry. Should it be on this
> secondary registry as another entry before “varh"?

It should be (and is being added by this draft) on the primary registry.

Grüße, Carsten


> Shortly I will send you the .md with the table and the two references I
> mentioned.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:40:28AM +0300, Jaime Jiménez wrote:
>> Hi Carsten,
>> 
>> comments inline. If you could send me the link to the repo I (or some
>> volunteer) can do the additions and after that we can do WGLC.
>> 
>> I can also send you an email with the edits.
>> 
>> 
>> Ciao!
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 09:04:34PM +0300, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>> Answering from memory...
>>> 
>>> Sent from mobile, sorry for terse
>>> 
>>>> On 13. Sep 2019, at 12:12, Jaime Jiménez <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Carsten,
>>>> 
>>>> here is the review for the draft.
>>>> 
>>>> ## General comments
>>>> 
>>>> - The Secondary Registry table is probably lacking a description column
>>>> similar to the main SenML registry.
>>> 
>>> That could be added, but the scale/offset columns are often all that is needed.  Open for input here. 
>> 
>> At least the acronym expansion would help, I can write some suggestions.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - It looks like "ppm" is not derived from any main SenML unit. As the
>>>> secondary registry is explicity for derived units, shouldn't ppm
>>>> be then in the main SenML registry?   
>>> 
>>> The base unit listed is / (slash), the unit we use for dimensionless quantities in senml. Iirc, it even says so. 
>> 
>> Ok, I see now (P32 RFC8428) that it is used to represent ratio. Sorry for that. 
>> 
>> (Sidenote: I wonder now if there might be some issue in the future as
>> the "/" character is also used to separate multiple URI path segments.)
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - There is an open comment on whether the text should update RFC 8428,
>>>> IMO the answer is yes but maybe the authors of both documents and the
>>>> group should decide.
>>> 
>>> Yes. I now think it does update 8428, as it allows the user of units defined in the secondary table where 8428 only allowed the primary one. 
>>>> 
>>>> ## Editorial
>>>> 
>>>> - P4: Says "four", however including the reference there would be five
>>>> columns. 
>>>> 
>>>> - P5: "Table 2" is missing the caption.
>>>> 
>>>> - P6,P7: Wouldn't the references to IEC and IEEE be informative rather than
>>>> normative?
>>> 
>>> Good question. They are normative for the units defined. 
>>>> 
>>>> - P7: IMHO for informational purposes it would help a lot to have references
>>>> to the right locations in BIPM and the IEC, which are referenced themselves in [RS]. 
>>> 
>>> Ok; do you have a text proposal?
>> 
>> Sure I could add a couple of references to those. 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ## Other
>>>> 
>>>> - The document indicates that new entries will be added through "Expert
>>>> Review". Often it is the case that little documentation is provided
>>>> when new entries are given to IANA and, since we should avoid
>>>> confusion, I would like to know if we will have specific experts
>>>> versed in the topics of Units to review the entries.
>>> 
>>> That is a requirement on the DE already in 8428, so I'm not sure the is a new one here. 
>> 
>> Ok, just wanted to make sure.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ciao!
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the review. 
>>> Do you think any of this blocks a WGLC?
>> 
>> I think we can do WGLC after the few edits mentioned before. 
>> 
>> 
>> Ciao!
>> 
>>> 
>>> Grüße, Carsten
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 09:15:39AM +0300, Jaime Jiménez wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'll try to provide a review in the coming days. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ciao!
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 07:07:56AM +0300, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Hannes,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Quick answer from my vacation:
>>>>>> The discussion we had during WG adoption raised a couple minor points, but nothing we couldn't handle during a WGLC. So if Jaime can do a chair's review soon, we could WGLC the document afterwards, say, until about Sep 30. 
>>>>>> Deg can be registered right away, but adding the second table requires iesg approval; so we should submit to iesg by, say, Oct 1 and could be approved by the end of the month, barring surprises. This is optimistic, but not unrealistic at all. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from mobile, sorry for terse
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 12. Sep 2019, at 18:27, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Carsten, Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When do you expect draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-00 to be completed?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ciao
>>>>>>> Hannes
>>>>>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> core mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> core mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> core mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> core mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>