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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 22, 2019, at 17:33, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Implementations are perfectly capable of multiplying and adding.

I think after 40+ years in the industry I can refute that statement :-)

But, seriously, this draft is based on a specific request from an SDO, OMA/IPSO, for which this secondary registry would enable porting their existing data models to ones based on the SenML units registry.  Other SDOs from this space might follow suit.

Clearly, when we did SenML, we didn’t want to go this route.  Currently, there is an amazing pull towards data model harmonization that has changed the fundamentals enough that this draft now makes sense.  I’ll leave it to IPSO people to explain this in more details.

“MAY, but SHOULD NOT” means exactly what it says; I don’t think there is a contradiction.
But of course we can contract this to “SHOULD NOT” if that helps.  Oh, and “cm” isn’t registered yet because OMA didn’t need it, not because it couldn’t be registered if that turns out to be desirable.

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.

Grüße, Carsten