Re: [Json] [Asdf] Kicking off ASDF charter discussion

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 08 August 2020 07:25 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A343A0B87; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oO1Jh_LlZ9bV; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 778D63A0B48; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.101] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BNtzd3RwBzys0; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:25:17 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <3271.1596839115@localhost>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:25:15 +0200
Cc: asdf@ietf.org, json@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 618564315.874993-60803e3743c83c46bea5704634d6dace
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2A11875E-43EA-4227-A6E7-A7F5A09831EC@tzi.org>
References: <5C210025-34B4-45BC-9A1D-66D9E92B339A@tzi.org> <3271.1596839115@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/KdQ0l-GOS4JqVDFLKylIA62i2lY>
Subject: Re: [Json] [Asdf] Kicking off ASDF charter discussion
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 07:25:23 -0000

On to the details:

> On 2020-08-08, at 00:25, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 1> The ASDF WG will work closely with the CBOR WG, home of the CDDL
> 1> specification.
> 
> While we are using CDDL to define the structure, I'm unclear what the back
> and forth that ASDF will have with CBOR here.  Are there pieces in CDDL that
> are missing that this model will motivate adding to CDDL?

That has already happened (the .feature feature).
I could imagine the SDF work will continue to be a fertile ground for further improving the usability of CDDL in specs of this kind.

> 2> It will also engage the still active mailing list of the
> 2> dormant JSON WG.
> 
> Is this about json-path, and/or json-schema?

Probably more about json data definition (which includes the json-schema.org proposals that have been inspiring the SDF data definition components).

> 3> Recent proposals to form an IRTF formal description
> 3> techniques (FDT) Research Group may lead to another collaboration
> 3> partner.
> 
> Where are these proposals occuring,

fdt@ietf.org

> and at one point will they conclude,

Good question.

> and
> is the timing of this important, critical, or optional to the process?

Entirely optional.

> 4> The Thing-to-Thing Research Group (T2TRG) and its WISHI program
> 4> can be instrumental in engaging researchers and other SDOs in this space,
> 4> or instance W3C WoT, which is working on Thing Description Templates and
> 4> related specifications.
> 
> This part seems rather aspirational.  All sorts of communications are
> important and beneficial, but is there some kind of implied liason activity,
> or some kind of cross-WG/RG last-call that is implied?

T2TRG is not engaging in formal liaisons.  It *is* working on getting people to talk (e.g., last week the discussion we had on Azure DTDL).  For ASDF, getting information from the various ecosystems trying to get their models expressed in SDF is vital — preferably in the form of people from these ecosystems taking part in the work, but ASDF people taking part in the communications is a good second best.

Grüße, Carsten